PDA

View Full Version : Re: A teenager question


blacksalt
July 8th 03, 06:29 PM
Karen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:01:32 -0400, "dejablues" >
> wrote:
>
> >FWIW, I would't kick any of my children out unless they were repeat
> >criminals.
>
> Absolutely agreed: Kicking a child out of the nest before adulthood
> (he's still a minor, for god's sakes!) is harsh and in this case it
> sounds unnecessary.

I left home at 16 and it was the best thing I ever did. My mother used
to say "whose bread you eat, his song you sing". One day I said "okay,
I'll eat my own bread". A 17.5 year old "child" could join the military,
marry, etc. I became more responsible looking out for myself, keeping my
own hours, getting myself up, keeping a job, etc.
I see some older teens lingering at home for what I call "the money
teat". They get snow boards and weekends on the slopes, etc. if they
stay home and fight with their parents over hours, grades, etc. I didn't
have a phone, a car, designer underware, and tie dyed hair, but I had my
independence and dignity. So glad my parents never offered me "the money
teat" to keep me around.
My parents were always happy to see me, and took my collect calls until
I could afford my weekly call to them, but never panicked or fussed. I
hope I am as brave and calm when the time comes, as I come from a family
of "early leavers".

Karen
July 8th 03, 07:08 PM
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:01:32 -0400, "dejablues" >
wrote:

>FWIW, I would't kick any of my children out unless they were repeat
>criminals.


Absolutely agreed: Kicking a child out of the nest before adulthood
(he's still a minor, for god's sakes!) is harsh and in this case it
sounds unnecessary.

I can certainly see his frustrated parents requiring this young man to
get a job and chip in for some share of his room and board if he
refuses to continue with school, but I think "kicking him out" is an
absolute last resort for a child who is really a danger to the family
- not someone going through a tough late adolescence.

My mother's heart would never allow me to do something like that.

Karen


--
The Orange Cat: Calendar, advice & tips for busy families in the San Gabriel Valley
www.theorangecat.org

Rosalie B.
July 8th 03, 08:28 PM
x-no-archive:yes
blacksalt > wrote:

>Karen wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:01:32 -0400, "dejablues" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >FWIW, I would't kick any of my children out unless they were repeat
>> >criminals.
>>
>> Absolutely agreed: Kicking a child out of the nest before adulthood
>> (he's still a minor, for god's sakes!) is harsh and in this case it
>> sounds unnecessary.
>
>I left home at 16 and it was the best thing I ever did. My mother used
>to say "whose bread you eat, his song you sing". One day I said "okay,
>I'll eat my own bread". A 17.5 year old "child" could join the military,
>marry, etc. I became more responsible looking out for myself, keeping my
>own hours, getting myself up, keeping a job, etc.

There is a BIG BIG difference between your saying "I'll eat my own
bread" and having your mom kick you out. It was YOUR choice and not
HER choice. She said, quite correctly that in her house it was her
rules. You didn't want to abide by the rules, so you left. She
allowed you to exercise that option.

That's quite different (although it looks the same on the surface
perhaps) to someone saying GET OUT - I just can't stand that you won't
do your schoolwork any longer so you can't live here anymore..

>I see some older teens lingering at home for what I call "the money
>teat". They get snow boards and weekends on the slopes, etc. if they
>stay home and fight with their parents over hours, grades, etc. I didn't

Those teens are being enabled by their parents to dependency. There
has to be some middle ground between giving a teen whatever money they
want and allowing them to do whatever they want (or just arguing about
it when they don't do what you want) and kicking them out altogether.

>have a phone, a car, designer underware, and tie dyed hair, but I had my
>independence and dignity. So glad my parents never offered me "the money
>teat" to keep me around.

Yes that would be bad.

>My parents were always happy to see me, and took my collect calls until
>I could afford my weekly call to them, but never panicked or fussed. I
>hope I am as brave and calm when the time comes, as I come from a family
>of "early leavers".

That's the best kind of parenting - allowing the teen to learn from
their own mistakes. It took my son a lot longer than I would have
liked to realize that he needed an education. But he's finally
getting down to it.


grandma Rosalie

blacksalt
July 8th 03, 08:56 PM
"Rosalie B." wrote:

> There is a BIG BIG difference between your saying "I'll eat my own
> bread" and having your mom kick you out. It was YOUR choice and not
> HER choice. She said, quite correctly that in her house it was her
> rules. You didn't want to abide by the rules, so you left. She
> allowed you to exercise that option.
>
> That's quite different (although it looks the same on the surface
> perhaps) to someone saying GET OUT - I just can't stand that you won't
> do your schoolwork any longer so you can't live here anymore..
>

Was it a matter of changing the locks and calling the police to keep a
17.5 year old out, or merely saying "these are the basic rules, and if
you leave if you don't want to follow them" and the kid saying "see ya
later"? I didn't get the feeling that physical force was involved
(actually "kicking out").

Rosalie B.
July 8th 03, 10:36 PM
x-no-archive:yes blacksalt > wrote:

>"Rosalie B." wrote:
>
>> There is a BIG BIG difference between your saying "I'll eat my own
>> bread" and having your mom kick you out. It was YOUR choice and not
>> HER choice. She said, quite correctly that in her house it was her
>> rules. You didn't want to abide by the rules, so you left. She
>> allowed you to exercise that option.
>>
>> That's quite different (although it looks the same on the surface
>> perhaps) to someone saying GET OUT - I just can't stand that you won't
>> do your schoolwork any longer so you can't live here anymore..
>>
>
>Was it a matter of changing the locks and calling the police to keep a
>17.5 year old out, or merely saying "these are the basic rules, and if
>you leave if you don't want to follow them" and the kid saying "see ya
>later"? I didn't get the feeling that physical force was involved
>(actually "kicking out").

I don't think changing locks was involved, but I did get the idea that
a certain amount of psychic force was involved. Not fisticuffs or
anything like that - maybe putting his stuff out on the lawn or
something similar. In any case what was written here was

>A friend just threw her 17.5 year old son out of the house.

I read that as more than just saying if you don't like the rules
leave, and not quite as much as changing the locks and calling the
police.

Of course you may be right - later she said:

>... He said he was going to drop out
>of school. She said that was fine, but if he was no longer under parental
>authority then he needed to leave home.
>He left, his stuff is all out of the house.

So it looks like she equated being in school and parental authority,
which I disagreed with. I think one needs to know when to let go, and
I certainly don't advocate letting the kid freeload on the parents,
but I never had any kids that did that (up to now anyway, and my
youngest is now 32.






grandma Rosalie

R. Steve Walz
July 9th 03, 04:03 AM
Rosalie B. wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes blacksalt > wrote:
>
> >"Rosalie B." wrote:
> >
> >> There is a BIG BIG difference between your saying "I'll eat my own
> >> bread" and having your mom kick you out. It was YOUR choice and not
> >> HER choice. She said, quite correctly that in her house it was her
> >> rules. You didn't want to abide by the rules, so you left. She
> >> allowed you to exercise that option.
> >>
> >> That's quite different (although it looks the same on the surface
> >> perhaps) to someone saying GET OUT - I just can't stand that you won't
> >> do your schoolwork any longer so you can't live here anymore..
> >>
> >
> >Was it a matter of changing the locks and calling the police to keep a
> >17.5 year old out, or merely saying "these are the basic rules, and if
> >you leave if you don't want to follow them" and the kid saying "see ya
> >later"? I didn't get the feeling that physical force was involved
> >(actually "kicking out").
>
> I don't think changing locks was involved, but I did get the idea that
> a certain amount of psychic force was involved. Not fisticuffs or
> anything like that - maybe putting his stuff out on the lawn or
> something similar. In any case what was written here was
>
> >A friend just threw her 17.5 year old son out of the house.
------------------------
Illegal in all 50 states of the USA. Have to wait till they're 18.
But then, even so, you may lose your child and heritage for life.
Steve

Wendy Marsden
July 11th 03, 10:37 PM
dejablues > wrote:
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> By the way, I left home at the same age.

> Was that to go college, that your parents were paying for?

Nice point. No, my parents didn't pay a dime of my education. My Dad
started paying me an allowance after I turned 18 that was equivalent to
the money he had been paying my mother in child support. It went towards
groceries (but didn't cover them.) I worked to support myself.

Wendy

Wendy Marsden
July 11th 03, 10:56 PM
Rosalie B. > wrote:

> I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that you (Wendy) seem so defensive
> when people disagree with your friend's action. Most of the attacking
> I've seen has been you saying as above that you don't think the people
> responding know what they are talking about because their children are
> not that old yet. It is as if you are almost as heavily invested in
> this mother's problem as if it was your own. I do not understand why
> this is so. Can she not be wrong?

I was hoping to get some insight into this to share with her and I'm well
aware that she won't be able to read people picking apart her parenting -
sh's been called unwise, told she failed at listening, ruled in a
black/white way, through him out for breaking ONE rule(!) and various
other characterizations that would upset her needlessly. I am
defending her feelings in advance. I'm positive that she isn't interested
in hashing over how she could have handled the previous year leading up to
this.

Reading this thread I'm aware now that I won't be able to print it
out for her, but I can digest stuff from it and offer it to her as if I
thought of it myself. :-) (My guess is that she would not be thrilled to
have her life exposed on usenet and this was probably a bad idea, though I
changed enough pertinent characteristics in that she wouldn't be
identifiable.)


> As to what she should do now - I would let it be known through the
> grapevine that she's willing to let him come home as long as he pays
> room and board out of his earnings, and also his car expenses
> including insurance. My in-laws built my dh's room with a separate
> entrance so he could come and go without going through the main house.

> If he cannot manage that, then there is a problem which will have to
> be addressed, but at least at that point they will be talking.

They were talking all along. The thing that lead to his leaving was his
failure to keep any of his agreements. You can say in retrospect that "he
didn't buy into it" as if that makes the agreement null and void, but
these people are not black and white authoritarians. It's true that they
are a family of "early leavers". As far as I know they don't pay for
college, for example. (They might help, though, I'm not sure.)

So what would lead them to think they he would pay the room and
board? For all I know that's one of the things he failed at.

These people are neither hypocritical nor money-hungry. I don't see why
saying it's okay for someone to stay if they pay room and board makes
sense. If he's not willing to live by house rules then he needs to find
another house or they DO become hypocritical.

Wendy

Wendy Marsden
July 11th 03, 11:05 PM
Marijke > wrote:

> Again, I'm so curious as to why you're angry that very few people are
> agreeing with your friend.

Sorry, Marijke, I've been here long enough to realize that the thread was
definitely going to draw more criticism than helpful advice. I really
like the way usenet comes up with different perspectives on a
problem.

But I really, really didn't want it to be all about whether she is a good
parent or not. I wanted to steer the conversation WELL AWAY from picking
her apart. I know she won't be able to bear it - she has no experience
with a place where you post your life's most awful traumas and have people
stomp all over you. *I* know this and should have expected it.

I also understand how these threads sort of become a case study for us to
explore how we want to handle these things in our own lives. That's part
of why I posted it, in fact, because I want to explore how to handle the
scenario of a kid who isn't following house rules. She's living it, but I
have two pre-teens and I'm paying close attention to how to handle this.

Wendy

Wendy Marsden
July 11th 03, 11:35 PM
dragonlady > wrote:

> I know this is long, but I'll go back to what I said at the beginning.
> The most important thing, to me, is absolute, unconditional love. That
> means I love my kids no matter WHAT I think of what they are doing. It
> also means (for me) that they always have a home with me, unless they
> are behaving in ways that endanger themselves or others, in which case I
> will have to try to find someplace for them to live that is safe.

Thanks for a great post!!! I really loved your story and it helps me to
see different ways to handle the rules. Thank you.

Wendy

toto
July 11th 03, 11:36 PM
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:56:06 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

> > As to what she should do now - I would let it be known through the
>> grapevine that she's willing to let him come home as long as he pays
>> room and board out of his earnings, and also his car expenses
>> including insurance. My in-laws built my dh's room with a separate
>> entrance so he could come and go without going through the main house.
>
>> If he cannot manage that, then there is a problem which will have to
>> be addressed, but at least at that point they will be talking.
>
>They were talking all along. The thing that lead to his leaving was his
>failure to keep any of his agreements. You can say in retrospect that "he
>didn't buy into it" as if that makes the agreement null and void, but
>these people are not black and white authoritarians. It's true that they
>are a family of "early leavers". As far as I know they don't pay for
>college, for example. (They might help, though, I'm not sure.)
>
>So what would lead them to think they he would pay the room and
>board? For all I know that's one of the things he failed at.
>
>These people are neither hypocritical nor money-hungry. I don't see why
>saying it's okay for someone to stay if they pay room and board makes
>sense. If he's not willing to live by house rules then he needs to find
>another house or they DO become hypocritical.
>
I don't think they are hypocritical or money-hungry from what you have
said. OTOH, I think that they need to realize that at 17.5, he is an
adult not a child and the *house rules* have to be ones that he has
input on and accepts. They cannot be by passed down by fiat.

As for what she can do now, the only thing she can do is allow him to
live his own life and make his own mistakes. The other thing she can
do is let him know that he *can* come home, but if she won't adjust
her rules, I suspect that he won't want to. If she really wants him
home, then she has to be willing to bend and compromise and let him
have a say in what the agreement will be. Now if he does this and
then breaks his part of the agreement, she will be back in the same
fix and he will need to go again and live on his own anyway.






>Wendy

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Wendy Marsden
July 11th 03, 11:38 PM
Peter > wrote:
> Your friends mother doesn't deserve to have children if she is only
> going to throw them out when she doesn't like what they do. I am 17 too.
> Thank God my parents don't thow me away everytime we don't get along or
> disagree.

Thanks for speaking up, Peter. I don't think we hear enough from kids in
this forum.

It's nice to consider the idea that only people who deserve children
should have them, but it doesn't work out that way. :-)

That said, I think my friend is an excellent mother. It is terribly hard
to judge another person's parenting by one instance.

Wendy

Wendy Marsden
July 11th 03, 11:52 PM
wrote:
> She has copped out on teaching her son how to take responsibility for
> himself by throwing him out and not trying. She has not only abdicated
> her legal responsibility for him, but her moral responsibility as
> well.

I think she is most troubled by the moral responsibility stuff. We were
talking a few weeks ago about how awful he was to live with - nothing
evil, just a cascading list of irresponsible, thoughtless acts typical to
teen-agers (and NOT why he left). I sympathized with her and said
something about how he sounded like a room-mate from hell and she said
that he was a room-mate whose welfare she was responsible for.

> Did you intend to make him sound like such a normal, good kid? She's
> very lucky to have such a son. I wish she'd realize it and find him
> and finish her job as a parent.

Is it possible her job could be done? He *is* awful to live with. Nearly
everyone here suggests paying room and board if he won't go to school, so
why must he pay room and board to her?

> She doesn't always make the
> choices I want her to, but she takes responsibility for her
> choices--good and bad. Sometimes it's incredibly hard for me not to
> try to take control and force her into my choices.

I just talked with my friend and she is struggling REALLY hard not to go
get him and bring him home. She's letting him make his own choices,
though, and he knows terms under which he can come back home. (He must
do enough summer school work so that he can enroll in the public high
school.) Right or wrong, in their family they have a rule that children
must leave home when they're finished with school. I don't think it is
asking unbearable amounts of a smart kid to at least finish high
school. (She'd allow a GED.)

> It'll be hard for your friend, too, but she needs to do it. Please
> give her my best wishes.

Thank you for your kind regards. I appreciated your post.

Wendy

dragonlady
July 12th 03, 12:24 AM
In article >,
toto > wrote:

> I don't think they are hypocritical or money-hungry from what you have
> said. OTOH, I think that they need to realize that at 17.5, he is an
> adult not a child and the *house rules* have to be ones that he has
> input on and accepts. They cannot be by passed down by fiat.
>

I sometimes forget this, and am always surprised by what happens when i
remember. (You'd think I'd learn . . .)

For example, when my oldest was out of high school and had turned 18 and
decided to pay board and room and live at home rather than start
college, she started staying out all night way too often for my comfort
-- like 5 or 6 times a week. She always told me when she was coming
home and when she wasn't, but I finally sat down and told her that i
didn't want to live with someone who just crashed here a few days a
week: I don't want just a boarder, I want a family member. I asked her
how often SHE thought it was reasonable to stay out all night. She said
3X a week. I thought about it, and said that would be OK with me.

After that, she stayed out maybe 3X a MONTH. Apparently, she just
needed to know that she COULD have a voice in the limits that were set.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toto
July 12th 03, 12:51 AM
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:01:15 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

> I can see how throwing him out if he DOESN'T is controversial, but
>it's just over-the-top to say it's breaking his spirit to make him do
>lessons for an hour a day.

Ah, but the point is you really can't *make* him do it.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Rosalie B.
July 12th 03, 01:04 AM
x-no-archive:yes Wendy Marsden > wrote:

>dejablues > wrote:
>> Counseling might be a good option because from some of Wendy's later posts,
>> she said that this has been brewing for a long time. and that there are
>> younger children being raised in the same family. You can't force the
>> 17-yr-old to go, but the rest of the family would benefit.
>
>That's an interesting point, but how on earth does one tell a friend,
>"gee, I think your family needs counseling!" This has been a trying time
>for them and I don't doubt that some family counseling might be useful,
>but I know at least one of their kids had counseling a few years ago so
>they have access to that sort of help and know enough to use it if they
>need it.

It would have to be their idea, or they would have to think that it
was their idea.
>
>It's playing itself out now - the kid has been spotted with dirty clothes
>mooching food off a sibling and is said to be considering doing his
>schoolwork. I think that'd be a great solution, if he decides to meet the
>parental terms and come home. My friend is still holding out hope of
>this. She's seen him a few times and even spoken a bit. I really don't
>think any permanent harm will come of this even if he doesn't decide to
>ever move back home.
>
There are so many other ways the schoolwork thing could be addressed.
Could he not get his GED? I'm afraid I don't see exactly how he can
'flunk' home schooling. Who decides if he flunked?

>I read Dorothy's poem about breaking a kid's spirit, but I just don't
>agree that making a kid finish summer school is a horrible thing to do to
>them. I can see how throwing him out if he DOESN'T is controversial, but
>it's just over-the-top to say it's breaking his spirit to make him do
>lessons for an hour a day.
>

If an hour a day is all it would take, I don't see how he can have
that much to do.


grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B.
July 12th 03, 01:36 AM
x-no-archive:yes

Wendy Marsden > wrote:

>Rosalie B. > wrote:
>
>> I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that you (Wendy) seem so defensive
>> when people disagree with your friend's action. Most of the attacking
>> I've seen has been you saying as above that you don't think the people
>> responding know what they are talking about because their children are
>> not that old yet. It is as if you are almost as heavily invested in
>> this mother's problem as if it was your own. I do not understand why
>> this is so. Can she not be wrong?
>
>I was hoping to get some insight into this to share with her and I'm well
>aware that she won't be able to read people picking apart her parenting -
>sh's been called unwise, told she failed at listening, ruled in a
>black/white way, through him out for breaking ONE rule(!) and various
>other characterizations that would upset her needlessly. I am
>defending her feelings in advance. I'm positive that she isn't interested
>in hashing over how she could have handled the previous year leading up to
>this.

Several people including me tried to say specifically what we did and
why, and give pointers and guidelines. Some other people did get
pretty antagonistic, but to dismiss all of what was written as
'picking apart her parenting' is pretty a bit much I think.

A lot of the criticism was because of the way you wrote about it.
You lead off with
>A friend just threw her 17.5 year old son out of the house.

Later you said:
>She said that was fine, but if he was no longer under parental
>authority then he needed to leave home.
>He left, his stuff is all out of the house.

If what you wrote wasn't accurate i.e. if he really decided to leave
rather than comply with house rules, rather than the mom doing the
'never darken my door again' thing, then you aren't going to get
reasonably applicable answers. People are/did react to the first
thing you wrote (which IMO was a little bit of a troll), and ignored
the second part.

If she did actually throw him out rather than it being a semi- mutual
decision, I do think she was unwise, and she may not have been
listening and may still not be listening.

When you responded to most people, you answered angrily that they
didn't have experience because they had young children. You didn't
respond to me at all until this post.

I'm sure that what she did in the previous years did in part lead up
to this as did what he did in previous years. Assessing blame for
what is water under the bridge isn't helpful, but accepting that
non-optimal actions were taken on both sides might be a good start.
>
>Reading this thread I'm aware now that I won't be able to print it
>out for her, but I can digest stuff from it and offer it to her as if I
>thought of it myself. :-) (My guess is that she would not be thrilled to
>have her life exposed on usenet and this was probably a bad idea, though

I think you are right about that. She didn't ask us for advice.

<snip>
> > As to what she should do now - I would let it be known through the
>> grapevine that she's willing to let him come home as long as he pays
>> room and board out of his earnings, and also his car expenses
>> including insurance. My in-laws built my dh's room with a separate
>> entrance so he could come and go without going through the main house.
>
>> If he cannot manage that, then there is a problem which will have to
>> be addressed, but at least at that point they will be talking.
>
>They were talking all along. The thing that lead to his leaving was his
>failure to keep any of his agreements. You can say in retrospect that "he
>didn't buy into it" as if that makes the agreement null and void, but
>these people are not black and white authoritarians. It's true that they
>are a family of "early leavers". As far as I know they don't pay for
>college, for example. (They might help, though, I'm not sure.)
>
>So what would lead them to think they he would pay the room and
>board? For all I know that's one of the things he failed at.
>
The idea of room and board is that he's not a child anymore, he's an
adult and he has to pay for someplace to eat and for food like any
independent adult. That's a better (IMHO) way for him to be still
under the parental roof, but not exactly be under parental authority.
I would be surprised if he had been having to pay for room and board
and especially car expenses and insurance.

>These people are neither hypocritical nor money-hungry. I don't see why
>saying it's okay for someone to stay if they pay room and board makes
>sense. If he's not willing to live by house rules then he needs to find
>another house or they DO become hypocritical.
>
It would not be for the money. I don't think anyone suggested that it
was for the money. He's making a token payment for the privilege of
setting his own rules and doing his own thing - not going to school if
he doesn't want to for instance. But he's still actually at home so
that if he screws up, he can say, without too much climbing down - mom
you were right and I need to have a HS diploma in order to be an
independent adult.

I think my grandson paid his mom $15 a week for the room and bought
his own food. No one is going to make money off of that.
grandma Rosalie

Barbara Bomberger
July 13th 03, 09:32 AM
Hopefully my statements below make some kind of sense. I generally
lurk and read and rarely post, except for when it has to do with older
children. However, having children from fourteen from twenty four,
and having gone through "teenage hood" more times than most, I do have
a couple of comments

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:56:06 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>
>I was hoping to get some insight into this to share with her and I'm well
>aware that she won't be able to read people picking apart her parenting -
>sh's been called unwise, told she failed at listening, ruled in a
>black/white way, through him out for breaking ONE rule(!) and various
>other characterizations that would upset her needlessly. I am
>defending her feelings in advance. I'm positive that she isn't interested
>in hashing over how she could have handled the previous year leading up to
>this.

She has other children, I assume all are younger, Don't you think
some insight would be helpful to her in dealing with future situations
that arise. I suspect that if she has problems here, she has at least
a fifty fifty chande of having similar problems as her other children
approach the same age. It is the nature of teenagers to question
rules and status quo situations pretty regularly. Its how we deal
with it that counts.

>They were talking all along. The thing that lead to his leaving was his
>failure to keep any of his agreements. You can say in retrospect that "he
>didn't buy into it" as if that makes the agreement null and void, but
>these people are not black and white authoritarians. It's true that they
>are a family of "early leavers". As far as I know they don't pay for
>college, for example. (They might help, though, I'm not sure.)
If this is an accurate scenario, then I would suggest it is the
responsibility of the parents to prepare the child for the real world.
Okay, then I would think they would be encouraging as much
independence as possible. It sounds to me like the opposite (I could
be wrong). In that siutation, I would be encouraging critical
thinking at every opportunity all through his high school years, and
encouraging him to make decisions. I would be giving him a changce to
make as many of his own choices, even if I believed they were massive
mistakes, while he was home with me. I would also have taught said
child basic "family or personal economics" for lack of a better term.
I would also make sure that, boy or girl, said child can shop and cook
nutruitios meals, sew, do a basic budget and so on.

>These people are neither hypocritical nor money-hungry. I don't see why
>saying it's okay for someone to stay if they pay room and board makes
>sense. If he's not willing to live by house rules then he needs to find
>another house or they DO become hypocritical.

Having a child pay room and board has nothing to do with being money
hungry. It has to do with teaching the child responsibiltiy while
being able to help assist, watch over and protect.

In my case, my kids have always paid room and board (not when they
were attending school, but if they were living at home and then
working). In my case, when the child moved into their own place, I
gave that money back to the child.

Barb

dragonlady
July 13th 03, 09:42 AM
In article >,
Barbara Bomberger > wrote:


>
> >These people are neither hypocritical nor money-hungry. I don't see why
> >saying it's okay for someone to stay if they pay room and board makes
> >sense. If he's not willing to live by house rules then he needs to find
> >another house or they DO become hypocritical.
>
> Having a child pay room and board has nothing to do with being money
> hungry. It has to do with teaching the child responsibiltiy while
> being able to help assist, watch over and protect.

It also is part of treating a person like an adult. After all, if you
were living with any other adult -- even a relative -- chances are good
you would expect them to contribute to the household, both in labor and
in finances. Why should it be any different just because the adult
with whom you are living is your offspring?

>
> In my case, my kids have always paid room and board (not when they
> were attending school, but if they were living at home and then
> working). In my case, when the child moved into their own place, I
> gave that money back to the child.
>

My mom did that, sort of -- she hung on to the money (though we didn't
know that) and when we decided we wanted to go to college, we got the
money back to pay tuition. I don't know if she'd have returned it if we
DIDN'T decide to go to college; all of us who lived at home when we
weren't in school did go back after that.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

kasha
July 24th 03, 08:01 PM
When my very smart son walked out of high school at 17 I was
in a similar position. He was in the midst of choosing a college.
He had an opportunity to attend tuition-free. I thought he would
be the child who went to college far away and would never come
home. But that was not to be ... he dropped out and arrangements
were made for him to attend a local community college. I worked
with his high school to get him in and try to prevent losing him.
He skipped classes and failed everything ... except guitar class.

To make a long story short ... that's been going on for 4 years
now. I did not have the heart to kick him out at 17. In the past
4 years he has attend 4 different colleges, earning 15 credits
one semester and failing every other. I have tried every suggestion
made. Even had his family doctor come visit (a surprise to my son).
He is now 21 and and has done nothing. Won't work, won't help around
the house. Pretty much plays the guitar and surfs the web all day.
Being on the technical side, I interrupted the cable signal at one
time so
we had no TV and not cable internet access for a few months to help
get him going. I thought he would get bored and get the message. Nope,
didn't work. Friends and family try to talk to him and he agrees with
everyone that he should be working and contributing.

I've been a single mother of 2 (sole custody) for 12 years now.
You try desperately to be supportive and understanding while they
find their way and it takes each child a different amount of time.
But it can't go on forever and sometimes you reach the point where
enough is enough .... and that's where I am. But do I have what it
takes to do it? I don't know ......... I just know he won't go on his
own (I've tried that) and it would have to be done with the help of a
court order. Ahhhhh, the joys of parenting!


kasha



"Marijke" > wrote in message >...
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
> ...
> > dejablues > wrote:
> >> My guess is that you don't have teen-agers. I think you have to play
> this
> > one by ear. Some kids will need it, some won't.
> >
>
> I have teenagers and I still wouldn't kick one out at 17 for not wanting to
> go to school. I'd insist on rules, jobs, stuff like that, and only *then*
> might I consider the "sorry, but maybe you need to live on your own route"
> but a "good" kid who doesn't do drugs, has good friends and works at a part
> time job? That's not a kid worth kicking out, that's a kid that is rebelling
> at the only thing he can safely rebel at it.
>
> I don't consider her a wise parent. I've seen (yes,I've seen it), "good"
> kids who went "bad" after getting kicked out. They figured, hey, my parents
> think I'm trash, I might as well act like it.
>
> Marijke
> mom to three kids, two of whom are teenagers

kasha
July 25th 03, 11:35 PM
"T.R.H." > wrote in message >...
> "kasha" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > > >
> >
> > kasha
> >
> tough love time....
> contribute and get your ass in gear or get out...
>
> I've got a cousin EXACLTY like you describe, he's now 49, living with my
> aunt & uncle *again*, works when he feels like it, knows damn well he should
> get off his ass but is not motivated, knows theres always that safety net I
> guess.
>
> Other than that he's a good guy, no bad vices or crap like that, actually
> had him work for me a couple of times & he's not afrain of work, just cant
> get motivated because he's never been pushed to, and he's the type that
> needs it
>
>
> cheers


Those are words I say so often but now have to backup with the real
live action. Unfortunately, it won't be easy since he won't leave on
his own. Am I'm afraid that at 49 he'd still be with me !!!!!! One of
these days I'd like to start having a full life again ...... not stay
at work late so I don't have to go home. 6:30 on a Friday night and I'm
still toying with a project I'm working on ... pretty sad.

That's exactly it though ... a safety net, safe harbor, a meal and
clean clothes and an easy life! It's hard to believe someone who used to
be so active with snowboarding and rock climbing and biking can just
settle for an such unsatisfying life .... and it has to be unsatisfying.

Thanks for the boost,
kasha

Chookie
July 26th 03, 04:36 AM
In article >,
(kasha) wrote:

> One of
> these days I'd like to start having a full life again ...... not stay
> at work late so I don't have to go home. 6:30 on a Friday night and I'm
> still toying with a project I'm working on ... pretty sad.
>
> That's exactly it though ... a safety net, safe harbor, a meal and
> clean clothes and an easy life!

Does this mean that he's not doing his washing, helping with the housework, or
cooking?

Suggestion: it is your house. You invite your friends around, or go out. No
reason for your life to be on hold even if his is (was there an unhappy
romance int eh recent past?)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

R. Steve Walz
July 26th 03, 08:20 AM
kasha wrote:
>
> When my very smart son walked out of high school at 17 I was
> in a similar position. He was in the midst of choosing a college.
> He had an opportunity to attend tuition-free. I thought he would
> be the child who went to college far away and would never come
> home. But that was not to be ... he dropped out and arrangements
> were made for him to attend a local community college. I worked
> with his high school to get him in and try to prevent losing him.
> He skipped classes and failed everything ... except guitar class.
>
> To make a long story short ... that's been going on for 4 years
> now. I did not have the heart to kick him out at 17. In the past
> 4 years he has attend 4 different colleges, earning 15 credits
> one semester and failing every other. I have tried every suggestion
> made. Even had his family doctor come visit (a surprise to my son).
> He is now 21 and and has done nothing. Won't work, won't help around
> the house. Pretty much plays the guitar and surfs the web all day.
> Being on the technical side, I interrupted the cable signal at one
> time so
> we had no TV and not cable internet access for a few months to help
> get him going. I thought he would get bored and get the message. Nope,
> didn't work. Friends and family try to talk to him and he agrees with
> everyone that he should be working and contributing.
>
> I've been a single mother of 2 (sole custody) for 12 years now.
> You try desperately to be supportive and understanding while they
> find their way and it takes each child a different amount of time.
> But it can't go on forever and sometimes you reach the point where
> enough is enough .... and that's where I am. But do I have what it
> takes to do it? I don't know ......... I just know he won't go on his
> own (I've tried that) and it would have to be done with the help of a
> court order. Ahhhhh, the joys of parenting!
>
> kasha
>
> "Marijke" > wrote in message >...
> > "Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > dejablues > wrote:
> > >> My guess is that you don't have teen-agers. I think you have to play
> > this
> > > one by ear. Some kids will need it, some won't.
> > >
> >
> > I have teenagers and I still wouldn't kick one out at 17 for not wanting to
> > go to school. I'd insist on rules, jobs, stuff like that, and only *then*
> > might I consider the "sorry, but maybe you need to live on your own route"
> > but a "good" kid who doesn't do drugs, has good friends and works at a part
> > time job? That's not a kid worth kicking out, that's a kid that is rebelling
> > at the only thing he can safely rebel at it.
> >
> > I don't consider her a wise parent. I've seen (yes,I've seen it), "good"
> > kids who went "bad" after getting kicked out. They figured, hey, my parents
> > think I'm trash, I might as well act like it.
> >
> > Marijke
> > mom to three kids, two of whom are teenagers
-------------------
You obviously pushed him into one thing after another trying to get
him sorted out so you didn't have to worry about him. You would be
shocked at the murderous rage this generates in kids. As Dr. Phil
would say, "How's that workin' for ya?" You clearly have avoided
ever REALLY getting to know him and what HE likes, and simply giving
him support for that. Instead YOU had your OWN somewhat rigid ideas
for what he "should" be.

So, at some point he simply gave on his life up and stopped altogether,
out of resentment. He's waiting for you to finally love him for what
HE wants to be, and he doesn't even consciously know that this is what
he is doing. He feels paralyzed and aimless. He really wishes secretly
that he had parents who actually liked him and what HE had wanted to
do. Before he leaves in any kind of good shape you'll have to give that
to him, or his only other departure will be under less than the best
circumstances, and his life will continue to be paralyzed.
Steve

R. Steve Walz
July 26th 03, 08:21 AM
T.R.H. wrote:
>
> "kasha" > wrote in message
> m...
> > When my very smart son walked out of high school at 17 I was
> > in a similar position. He was in the midst of choosing a college.
> > He had an opportunity to attend tuition-free. I thought he would
> > be the child who went to college far away and would never come
> > home. But that was not to be ... he dropped out and arrangements
> > were made for him to attend a local community college. I worked
> > with his high school to get him in and try to prevent losing him.
> > He skipped classes and failed everything ... except guitar class.
> >
> > To make a long story short ... that's been going on for 4 years
> > now. I did not have the heart to kick him out at 17. In the past
> > 4 years he has attend 4 different colleges, earning 15 credits
> > one semester and failing every other. I have tried every suggestion
> > made. Even had his family doctor come visit (a surprise to my son).
> > He is now 21 and and has done nothing. Won't work, won't help around
> > the house. Pretty much plays the guitar and surfs the web all day.
> > Being on the technical side, I interrupted the cable signal at one
> > time so
> > we had no TV and not cable internet access for a few months to help
> > get him going. I thought he would get bored and get the message. Nope,
> > didn't work. Friends and family try to talk to him and he agrees with
> > everyone that he should be working and contributing.
> >
> > I've been a single mother of 2 (sole custody) for 12 years now.
> > You try desperately to be supportive and understanding while they
> > find their way and it takes each child a different amount of time.
> > But it can't go on forever and sometimes you reach the point where
> > enough is enough .... and that's where I am. But do I have what it
> > takes to do it? I don't know ......... I just know he won't go on his
> > own (I've tried that) and it would have to be done with the help of a
> > court order. Ahhhhh, the joys of parenting!
> >
> >
> > kasha
> >
> tough love time....
> contribute and get your ass in gear or get out...
>
> I've got a cousin EXACLTY like you describe, he's now 49, living with my
> aunt & uncle *again*, works when he feels like it, knows damn well he should
> get off his ass but is not motivated, knows theres always that safety net I
> guess.
>
> Other than that he's a good guy, no bad vices or crap like that, actually
> had him work for me a couple of times & he's not afrain of work, just cant
> get motivated because he's never been pushed to, and he's the type that
> needs it
>
> cheers
-------------------
You've got it absolutely ass-backwards. He was always pushed and always
disliked it, and he learned to resist it by paralysis.
Steve

kasha
July 26th 03, 06:41 PM
"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message >...
> T.R.H. wrote:
> >
> > >
> > tough love time....
> > contribute and get your ass in gear or get out...
> >
> > I've got a cousin EXACLTY like you describe, he's now 49, living with my
> > aunt & uncle *again*, works when he feels like it, knows damn well he should
> > get off his ass but is not motivated, knows theres always that safety net I
> > guess.
> >
> > Other than that he's a good guy, no bad vices or crap like that, actually
> > had him work for me a couple of times & he's not afrain of work, just cant
> > get motivated because he's never been pushed to, and he's the type that
> > needs it
> >
> > cheers



> -------------------
> You've got it absolutely ass-backwards. He was always pushed and always
> disliked it, and he learned to resist it by paralysis.
> Steve


Although I do believe that is a valid theory in some cases, I have to
disagree that it applies to my situation. No, my son wasn't pushed.
That's not my style. I'm pretty liberal and have always let the kids
have a say in things. My son was motivated in the past to do things he
enjoyed, like sports, camps, jobs, etc. If I was the pushy type he
would have been long gone. It was his choice to leave school and I
didn't make him stay. I was the mom who did his paper route so he
could go skiing and have the fun kids are supposed to have. If
anything, that could be the problem, that I wasn't pushy enough ...
but then he was a motivated and driven youngster and didn't need
pushing, wouldn't have stood for it anyway. He's just become lazy,
stubborn, and defiant. Says he didn't ask to be brought into this life
and so justifies his behavior with that ... that the world owes him or
more to the point ... I owe him. It's not paralysis ... it's downright
selfishness.

kasha

blacksalt
July 26th 03, 08:15 PM
kasha wrote:
>
It's hard to believe someone who used to
> be so active with snowboarding and rock climbing and biking can just
> settle for an such unsatisfying life .... and it has to be unsatisfying.

Has drugs or a mental illness crossed your mind?

Barbara Bomberger
July 26th 03, 08:53 PM
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:12:03 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>kasha > wrote:
>> I was the mom who did his paper route so he
>> could go skiing and have the fun kids are supposed to have.
>
>Oh, dear. I've been doing it backwards. I thought *they* were supposed
>to earn their fun money.

I agree that kids should hold their own jobs and earn their own money

That said, I think the occasional ski trip, scout trip, type thing is
not unreasonable for a kid.

In my case I did it because my kids couldnt find substitutes, and for
them not to deliver would have been unfair to the customers.

Usually averaged a week, maybe two a year. Also did it when said kid
was sick, and drove him through blizzards

Barb
>
>Wendy

toto
July 26th 03, 08:59 PM
On 26 Jul 2003 10:41:10 -0700, (kasha) wrote:

>"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message >...
>> T.R.H. wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > tough love time....
>> > contribute and get your ass in gear or get out...
>> >
>> > I've got a cousin EXACLTY like you describe, he's now 49,
>> > living with my aunt & uncle *again*, works when he feels like it,
>> > knows damn well he should get off his ass but is not motivated,
>> >knows theres always that safety net I guess.
>> >
>> > Other than that he's a good guy, no bad vices or crap like
>> > that, actually had him work for me a couple of times & he's
>> > not afrain of work, just cant get motivated because he's never
>> > been pushed to, and he's the type that needs it
>> >
>> > cheers
>>
>> -------------------
>> You've got it absolutely ass-backwards. He was always pushed
>> and always disliked it, and he learned to resist it by paralysis.
>> Steve
>
>Although I do believe that is a valid theory in some cases, I have to
>disagree that it applies to my situation. No, my son wasn't pushed.
>That's not my style. I'm pretty liberal and have always let the kids
>have a say in things. My son was motivated in the past to do things
>he enjoyed, like sports, camps, jobs, etc.

What seems to have demotivated him then?

>If I was the pushy type he would have been long gone. It was his
>choice to leave school and I didn't make him stay.

What did you do though to see that he took some responsibility
for himself after he did leave school?

Was he working?

Did you ask him to contribute to the household expenses?

>I was the mom who did his paper route so he could go skiing
>and have the fun kids are supposed to have.

This, imo, is a major mistake. If he took on a paper route,
then it is his responsibilty to complete the tasks involved
not youre.


> If anything, that could be the problem, that I wasn't pushy
>enough ... but then he was a motivated and driven youngster
>and didn't need pushing, wouldn't have stood for it anyway.

If he was driven, what changed?

It is interesting because I don't think this kind of change
just comes out of nowhere. Is it possible that he failed
at something he really wanted to do and it affected his
perception of himself? Could someone at school have
been bullying him? Is it possible that he was abused in
some way and did not want to tell you?

>He's just become lazy, stubborn, and defiant. Says he
>didn't ask to be brought into this life and so justifies his
>behavior with that ...

This would worry me because it sounds like depression.

Have you noticed any other behavior that leads you to think
he may be self-harming? So many kids cut or end up with
eating disorders today, that I would check on these possibilities
too.


>that the world owes him or more to the point ... I owe him.
>It's not paralysis ... it's downright selfishness.
>
If he says *you* owe him, have you spoken to him about
why he thinks this.

It seems to me that there is some failure of communication
here that needs to be addressed.

>kasha

Take what you thinks help from this and leave anything that
you think you can't use.

I would... ask him to sit down and talk with you about what
changes need to be made in your household.

First, ask him to define the problems as *he* sees it.

Don't judge. Take notes and write down what he says
Reflect back what you are hearing to be sure you have it
right. Validate his feelings, but not the actions that you
dislike.

Then talk about how everyone in a household needs to
contribute to its well-being.

Ask him how he thinks you contribute, ask him how
he thinks others in the house contribute.

Brainstorm new ways to make the household run smoothly
Since he is no longer in school, ask him what he wants to
do with his life. What are his dreams? Don't judge and
allow all of the far fetched fantasies as well as practical
things to come out. You may want to write this list down
too. Add your own dreams and fantasies about what you
would like to do and be too.

Then see if you can each choose one of those dreams
and make a list of practical ways to make them come
true.

Make sure that you make a plan to revisit the strategies
and evaluate how they are going at some future date too.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto
July 26th 03, 11:14 PM
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:53:29 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:12:03 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:
>
>>kasha > wrote:
>>> I was the mom who did his paper route so he
>>> could go skiing and have the fun kids are supposed to have.
>>
>>Oh, dear. I've been doing it backwards. I thought *they* were supposed
>>to earn their fun money.
>
>I agree that kids should hold their own jobs and earn their own money
>
>That said, I think the occasional ski trip, scout trip, type thing is
>not unreasonable for a kid.
>
I don't think trips are unreasonable, but I do think that kids may
have to give up trips when they take on a job. And they should
actually realize this when they take the job on

>In my case I did it because my kids couldnt find substitutes, and for
>them not to deliver would have been unfair to the customers.
>
Yes, it would be unfair to the customers. OTOH, it is an important
lesson in priorities - that they must sometimes decide between
two things that are important and that when they take a job, they have
to cope with the consequences if they cannot find subs to help them

>Usually averaged a week, maybe two a year. Also did it when said kid
>was sick, and drove him through blizzards
>
When he was sick, I think it is a good thing to help him. But
blizzards? I don't know that people expect paper delivery during
a blizzard anyway. Once the blizzard is over, then he could probably
still deliver the paper on his own.. We certainly managed here when
we were young.

>Barb
>>
>>Wendy


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

R. Steve Walz
July 26th 03, 11:34 PM
kasha wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message >...
> > T.R.H. wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > tough love time....
> > > contribute and get your ass in gear or get out...
> > >
> > > I've got a cousin EXACLTY like you describe, he's now 49, living with my
> > > aunt & uncle *again*, works when he feels like it, knows damn well he should
> > > get off his ass but is not motivated, knows theres always that safety net I
> > > guess.
> > >
> > > Other than that he's a good guy, no bad vices or crap like that, actually
> > > had him work for me a couple of times & he's not afrain of work, just cant
> > > get motivated because he's never been pushed to, and he's the type that
> > > needs it
> > >
> > > cheers
>
> > -------------------
> > You've got it absolutely ass-backwards. He was always pushed and always
> > disliked it, and he learned to resist it by paralysis.
> > Steve
>
> Although I do believe that is a valid theory in some cases, I have to
> disagree that it applies to my situation. No, my son wasn't pushed.
-------------
The "pusher" always denies it.


> That's not my style. I'm pretty liberal and have always let the kids
> have a say in things. My son was motivated in the past to do things he
> enjoyed, like sports, camps, jobs, etc. If I was the pushy type he
> would have been long gone.
-------------
Doesn't take much. You literally have to stifle yourself to keep
from harming his motivational dynamic.


> It was his choice to leave school and I
> didn't make him stay. I was the mom who did his paper route so he
> could go skiing
------------
Why?


>and have the fun kids are supposed to have.
--------------
Supposed to? Who said?
Gee, I thought MY PAPER ROUTE was fun.


> If
> anything, that could be the problem, that I wasn't pushy enough ...
--------------
That's what "pushers" in denial ALWAYS say. They secretly always believe
they didn't push hard ENOUGH, so they minimize TREMENDOUSLY!


> but then he was a motivated and driven youngster and didn't need
> pushing, wouldn't have stood for it anyway. He's just become lazy,
> stubborn, and defiant.
------------------
Now why in the world would he do that unless you actually pushed him?
What in the world would be his motivation? You see, kids HAVE TO GET
THAT FROM SOMEWHERE!!! You were pushing the **** out of him and denying
it.


> Says he didn't ask to be brought into this life
> and so justifies his behavior with that ... that the world owes him or
> more to the point ... I owe him. It's not paralysis ... it's downright
> selfishness.
> kasha
-------------------
He obviously is feeling that way for a reason. Now think: If you had
always been his best friend who encouraged him in everything HE wanted
to try and NEVER had pushed him at something he didn't like, WHERE DID
his current disappointment come from?? It DOES NOT COME FROM NOWHERE,
there is NO NOWHERE for it to COME FROM!! It comes precisely and exactly
from the way you treat him! Everybody knows this about parents and
children, so why do you deny it? And it's time you come to grips with
it, because YOU'RE in HUGE DENIAL!!
Steve

dragonlady
July 26th 03, 11:51 PM
In article >,
toto > wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:53:29 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:12:03 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > wrote:
> >
> >>kasha > wrote:
> >>> I was the mom who did his paper route so he
> >>> could go skiing and have the fun kids are supposed to have.
> >>
> >>Oh, dear. I've been doing it backwards. I thought *they* were supposed
> >>to earn their fun money.
> >
> >I agree that kids should hold their own jobs and earn their own money
> >
> >That said, I think the occasional ski trip, scout trip, type thing is
> >not unreasonable for a kid.
> >
> I don't think trips are unreasonable, but I do think that kids may
> have to give up trips when they take on a job. And they should
> actually realize this when they take the job on
>

Absolutely; my 17 yo son just started a new job (today is his 7th day)
knowing full well that he may have to give up the church senior high
camping trip and an end of summer conference that he'd planned on
attending. Those are choices he made willingly. However, he's hoping
to be able to work his schedule around one 3 day break (either end of
the camping trip, *or* the summer conference). Since this is a regular
type of teen job (tour guide) he may be able to do that, whereas with a
paper route it would be much more difficult.

This is one of the reasons I actively discouraged my kids from taking on
paper routes. They were a 7 morning a week job, and the system (at
least where we were) was NOT set up for easy substitutes.

"Discouraged" may be the wrong word: I made sure they knew where to
apply and how, and if it was something they had decided to do, I would
not have stopped them -- however, I think the average 10 to 15 year old
ought to be able to go on the ski weekend with the church youth group,
or out of town to spend the weekend with grandparents occassionally. I
just made sure the kids knew that a paper route would tie them down
completely -- and that it was NOT something I was willing to do for
them, so they would have to find other subs. I wanted them to think
seriously about getting up early (without much help from mom : I'm NOT
a morning person!), going out no matter what the weather was (and most
newspapers require delivery in all but the most horrid blizzards), and
being tied to a paper route 7 days a week. There were other jobs
available that might not have paid quite as well at that age -- but I
wanted them to be fully aware of the costs of the job, as well.

Around here, I don't think young people do any of the paper delivery;
it all seems to be done from cars, so someone has to be over 16.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Wendy Marsden
July 27th 03, 04:21 AM
kasha > wrote:
> Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
>> kasha > wrote:
>> > I was the mom who did his paper route so he
>> > could go skiing and have the fun kids are supposed to have.
>>
>> Oh, dear. I've been doing it backwards. I thought *they* were supposed
>> to earn their fun money.
>>
>> Wendy

> No you're not doing it wrong and I didn't do it wrong.

Sorry for being disengenuous. I thought you were saying you did it more
than once in a while subbing.

I agree with the other posters that you need to see if you can find some
underlying problem - depression, drug addiction, schizophrenia? I also
agree that you need to listen to what his take on the situation is - what
is keeping him from his next step of doing all the things adult do?

The over-arching theme of my parenting is giving my children all the
skills they'll need to be adults. They learn to do adult chores. They
learn to negotiate bureaucracies. They learn to cook and shop and conduct
themselves while travelling. Hopefully I'll teach them some of my values
and their cognative development will allow them to learn to think for
themselves and they'll learn to analyze problems and, with maturity,
they'll learn to come up with good solutions.

And then they'll leave. I didn't have kids to have babies, I had kids to
have a family. I want them to be adults with me for the next forty or
fifty years.

My friend with the 17 year old - the one that started this thread - he
still isn't home. She and I went out to lunch together Thursday and she
mentioned wrangling with the high school guidance counselor about getting
him enrolled in the high school, but I don't know if he's going to finish
high school as an emancipated minor or if he's coming home. I didn't ask
details, but she seemed less worried about him and I interpret that to
mean that he's back on track towards making his awkward way into
adulthood.

I'll post an update if I figure out the story, but I didn't want to pry
just so I could keep you posted! :-)

Anyway, I really think that giving a kid the boot when you've taught him
all that you can teach him is a good idea. After some point there isn't
anything to be gained by giving him a roof and three squares. He's more
damaged by the safety net than he is helped by it.

We can quite honestly engage in debate about whether 17.5 is prima facia
too young for the "boot", but I think your kid is past that age, right?

So why aren't you booting him?

Wendy

Barbara Bomberger
July 27th 03, 09:40 AM
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:14:39 -0500, toto >
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:53:29 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:12:03 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:
>>

>>
>I don't think trips are unreasonable, but I do think that kids may
>have to give up trips when they take on a job. And they should
>actually realize this when they take the job on

And I agree, My kids have always had jobs, my son has one at thirteen

The problem with paper routses (and why Im actually agin' em, at least
for kids, is that they are seven days a week, every day of the year.
In Washington DC, the Post never, ever doesnt publish.

Since the paper doesnt offer substitutes, and we are in a "low
teenager" enighborhood. I see no problem with substituting for my son
for a couple weeks. Your mileage may vary

And yes, my son feels that if they can get the papers to him, then he
is obligated even in blizzard type weather, to deliver. If the bus
cant get to him (which has happened), then its a different issue

Barb
>

Wendy Marsden
August 2nd 03, 04:06 PM
Just an update to those who were following my friend with the 17.5 year
old son. To recap: he failed his homeschool classes, he failed at the
local Community College classes his mother enrolled him in. He
disregarded parental authority regarding rules and curfews and was
generally just a ****er. His parents demanded he finish his school. He
said he was old enough to drop out. His parents said that if he was
saying he was old enough to not be under parental authority then he no
longer got to live at home. He left that evening.

My friend was at a loss on how to get the party boy to knuckle down and do
his schoolwork and to participate in family chores, as well as how to get
him to learn an iota of awareness about how his actions affected others in
his family.

Okay, so here's where things stand. They have been talking. He wants to
come home. He has agreed to enroll in the local high school as a junior
and his mother has danced through the million hoops the local high school
has put in his path but now it looks like he can start there in a few
weeks. They've decided to not let him come home until he actually DOES
start there, based on his past record of saying anything to get his way
and not actually doing it.

I'm not sure it's an "all's well that ends well" scenario, yet, but I
think it's on track to become one. After reading this entire thread I
just cannot find it in my heart to feel that she was WRONG to throw him
out. I agreed with the posters who thought you just have to put up with
their crap because it is your parental responsibility, but I also think
that sometimes, as a parent, your best bet is to step back and let the kid
face the consequences of their choices.

So, anyway, there's the update.

Wendy

toto
August 2nd 03, 05:44 PM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:06:22 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>Just an update to those who were following my friend with the
>17.5 year old son. To recap: he failed his homeschool classes,
>he failed at the local Community College classes his mother
>enrolled him in.

Perhaps this was the problem though - she was enrolling him
in classes he had no interest in taking instead of allowing him
to choose his own path?

This had to be a long time coming? When did he begin
homeschooling? And how were the homeschooling classes
being structured? I don't exactly get how your *fail* homeschool
classes since you don't get grades in them in the traditional
sense. If you are not getting the material, it is an indication
that reteaching is needed and that the curriculum needs to be
changed or that the way in which it is taught needs to be
changed (at least in a one on one homeschool situation).

Obviously this is not something she can change now, but it is
something that I wonder about. If her homeschooling was
structured in the same way as the school was, why homeschool
at all?

>He disregarded parental authority regarding rules and curfews
>and was generally just a ****er.

IOW, he was rebelling against their control and they were not
willing to compromise in any way?

>His parents demanded he finish his school. He said he was
>old enough to drop out. His parents said that if he was saying
>he was old enough to not be under parental authority then he no
>longer got to live at home. He left that evening.

I do think if he returns, they need to be flexible about their rules
and they do need to ask him to pay some of his way if he has
a job. Or if not, to do something around the house that makes a
contribution to keeping up the home. OTOH, this should be a
mutual decision not by parental fiat.

I think that they got several kids who were easy and so didn't
understand that some kids rebel more and more the stricter you
attempt to be.. But they also let him get away with this for too
long and didn't communicate with him and listen to him as he
got to the rebellious phase of adolescence.

I hope they work it out better if and when he does return, but they
are going to have to change their style of parenting, it seems to
me.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto
August 2nd 03, 05:47 PM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:06:22 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>Okay, so here's where things stand. They have been talking. He wants to
>come home. He has agreed to enroll in the local high school as a junior
>and his mother has danced through the million hoops the local high school
>has put in his path but now it looks like he can start there in a few
>weeks. They've decided to not let him come home until he actually DOES
>start there, based on his past record of saying anything to get his way
>and not actually doing it.

I would agre that they should not allow him to return unless he is
really going to follow through. OTOH, she cannot do his work for
him in high school and he will need to work to get the grades to
graduate. So, again, she and her husband need to sit down with
him and work out a program. It should include compromises on the
rules that are acceptable to him as well as to them.

Remember though his grades and his school work are *his*
responsibility. Parents provide the time and space to do the
assignments, but it is his responsibility to get things done. What
are they going to do if his first grade report shows him failing
all his classes? They need a plan and it should be negotiated
with him.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Rosalie B.
August 2nd 03, 07:54 PM
x-no-archive:yes
Wendy Marsden > wrote:

>toto > wrote:
>> Remember though his grades and his school work are *his*
>> responsibility. Parents provide the time and space to do the
>> assignments, but it is his responsibility to get things done.
>
>Agreed. I think you unfairly assumed that they mandated a course of study
>for him. He had much say in the course of study, he just didn't actually
>do it. So what consequences do you envision for that?
>
No food?

This is something that needed to be done 15 years ago more or less.
It's probably too late now, and natural consequences need to take
over.

>> What
>> are they going to do if his first grade report shows him failing
>> all his classes? They need a plan and it should be negotiated
>> with him.
>
>What is your advice? The kid is smart, he just can't fit studying into
>his busy social schedule. What they did before is stop homeschooling and
>send him to a structured environment (the Community College.) He still
>didn't do the work. They set up a summer school program with a bare
>minimum amount of work (the kid hadn't passed 10th grade math) and he
>still didn't do it. (It was this episode that lead to his statement about
>being old enough to drop out and their realization that the kid wasn't
>being well-served to remain at home a slacker.)
>
>So, third try. Let's say he doesn't do the work. Now he's turning
>18. They're not interested in running a boarding house for slacker kids
>even if he pays rent - he just isn't that enjoyable a house-mate.
>(There's an understatement in there.) Does it fit within your world view
>for them to say "sayanara" then?
>
>(In my own mother's case she called the military recruiter's office and
>told them to come get the lazy bum. They did and my older brother was
>well-served by a stint with Uncle Sam.)

This sounds a lot like my grandson. And what my dd did was move away
(she went on a 3 year job exchange to England). Granted that wouldn't
be applicable for everyone. He didn't have a driver's license or a
car. She got him set up in an apartment with a reasonable friend, and
then left.

I would be a little leery of Uncle Sam at the present because I think
there is more drug use etc. in the lower ratings than there was when
my dh and dd were doing it. DD#2 who was in the AF recommended that
my ds NOT get into the Army and wasn't too sure about the Navy.

In my case, my son was charming and not really lazy. He was quite
able to get and keep jobs and earn money, and was generally
responsible and ambitious - just not academically. It has taken him
some time to get to the place where he sees the need for additional
education and is willing to make an effort in that direction.


grandma Rosalie

toto
August 2nd 03, 10:22 PM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:32:12 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>So, third try. Let's say he doesn't do the work. Now he's
>turning 18. They're not interested in running a boarding house
>for slacker kids even if he pays rent

How would he be a *slacker* if he was working and paid rent?
I dislike labelling anyone as lazy or a slacker, but I suspect
that this kid has been labelled that by those around him for
years and he won't try to change unless he begins to see himself
in a better light or to see that he must.

>- he just isn't that enjoyable a house-mate.

Seems that is more the issue then.

>(There's an understatement in there.)

>Does it fit within your world view for them to say
>"sayanara" then?
>

Sure. In fact, I don't see why she wants him home at this point
if she doesn't think very well of him. I suspect he needs time
on his own to understand what is required to actually take care
of himself.

>(In my own mother's case she called the military recruiter's
>office and told them to come get the lazy bum. They did and
>my older brother was well-served by a stint with Uncle Sam.)

Won't happen nowadays. The services only take kids who
graduate or get their GED now, I believe. No room for kids
who don't have the skills.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto
August 3rd 03, 01:04 AM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:32:12 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>toto > wrote:
>> Remember though his grades and his school work are *his*
>> responsibility. Parents provide the time and space to do the
>> assignments, but it is his responsibility to get things done.
>
>Agreed. I think you unfairly assumed that they mandated a
>course of study for him. He had much say in the course of
>study, he just didn't actually do it.

You said his mother signed him up for college courses.
Imo, if he wanted those courses, he could have signed
himself up. At any rate, that is not important any longer.

>So what consequences do you envision for that?
>
Natural consequence - he fails the course and has to take
it over. Or he drops out of school and has to take the GED
later in life. Also, have him earn the tuition money if it is
a course he already took and failed rather than just paying
for it out of parent's pocket.

>> What are they going to do if his first grade report shows
>> him failing all his classes? They need a plan and it should
>> be negotiated with him.
>
>What is your advice?

This situation did NOT happen overnight.

Thus it can't be solved in one day or one year.

>The kid is smart,

Smart about manipulating his parents, it would seem.
From what you say, his parents have allowed that.

>he just can't fit studying into his busy social schedule.

Well, he should be paying for his own social activities,
So paying for his own food, paying rent, etc. might make
it difficult for him to also keep up with the social schedule.

>What they did before is stop homeschooling and send
>him to a structured environment (the Community College.)
>He still didn't do the work. They set up a summer school
>program with a bare minimum amount of work (the kid
>hadn't passed 10th grade math) and he still didn't do it.

They set up... Where did he take responsibility? When
did he say he would do it? Did he want to take these
classes?

>(It was this episode that lead to his statement about
>being old enough to drop out and their realization that
>the kid wasn't being well-served to remain at home a
>slacker.)
>
See, the labels are not a good thing. I don't care whether
they say it out loud or not, he has gotten the message.
*I am a slacker* has become a self-fulfilling prophecy and
at 17.5, that will be hard to change.

If they really want to change it, they have to change themselves
and hope his behavior will change in response. Telling him to
change is NOT going to cut it.

So, get positive. Start noticing when he does something
that required working. If he cleans his room, say *I see that
you organized things well* If he does an English assignment
for school, read it and say *you described the scenery well*
or *the characters seem very real to me* Be specific and
tell him what was good about the paper. If he is doing a
math assignment and not getting it, you can still say *you
are working really hard on that problem*

Does he need a tutor? Perhaps he has a learning disability
that is being overlooked. Since she was homeschooling
him, she may see his intelligence, but he can be very smart
and still have an LD. My bil, for example, had problems with
reading because his eyes didn't track together. He had to
do exercises for his eyes for some time. He graduated from
MIT with honors, so he is very smart, but when he was younger
he had a lot of trouble with reading.

>So, third try. Let's say he doesn't do the work. Now he's
>turning 8. They're not interested in running a boarding house
>for slacker kids even if he pays rent

He's their son. Now, it's fine not to want to run a boarding house,
but they have some tough choices. They can say, ok, then it is
time for you to live on your own and pay your own way, or they can
see if they can help. Now, by helping, I don't mean simply letting
him live there without doing anything. If he lives at home as an
adult, he needs to pay for rent and food and for his own social
life. He would need to be treated as an adult though. He would
set his own schedule, be allowed his privacy, just as if he was
an unrelated college student or working young person renting a
room from them. They would need to treat him as an adult. That
is never easy for parents to do when they don't agree with their
child's choices.

I would also suggest they buy and read Positive Discipline for
Teens by Jane Nelson and Lynn Lott though it is a bit late for
a kid who is almost 18. It still might give them ideas for how
to talk to him.

>- he just isn't that enjoyable a house-mate. (There's an
>understatement in there.) Does it fit within your
>world view for them to say "sayanara" then?
>
In the last analysis, it doesn't matter if it fits *my* worldview or
not, what matters is does it fit theirs and can they stick with their
decision and not intervene because they are worried about him.

<snip>

>Wendy

I wish them the best with this, but it may be that the only way he
can learn is by spending some years on his own struggling with
making his own way.

I hope that they will at least look at possible learning disabilities
and help for those because if he does have any and the help is
not there, it may be that he won't do well on his own at all.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

R. Steve Walz
August 3rd 03, 05:07 AM
Wendy Marsden wrote:
>
> Just an update to those who were following my friend with the 17.5 year
> old son. To recap: he failed his homeschool classes, he failed at the
> local Community College classes his mother enrolled him in. He
> disregarded parental authority regarding rules and curfews and was
> generally just a ****er. His parents demanded he finish his school. He
> said he was old enough to drop out. His parents said that if he was
> saying he was old enough to not be under parental authority then he no
> longer got to live at home. He left that evening.
----------------------
Actually, he has the right to support till he's 18 in most states,
and that's NO MATTER WHAT!

But:
He'll leave again, she has dishonored his wishes for his life and that
will now stick in his craw and choke him forever.


> My friend was at a loss on how to get the party boy to knuckle down and do
> his schoolwork and to participate in family chores, as well as how to get
> him to learn an iota of awareness about how his actions affected others in
> his family.
----------------------
Pouting that he has upset you when you upset him far more will NOT
work. It's even MORE dishonoring.


> Okay, so here's where things stand. They have been talking. He wants to
> come home. He has agreed to enroll in the local high school as a junior
> and his mother has danced through the million hoops the local high school
> has put in his path but now it looks like he can start there in a few
> weeks. They've decided to not let him come home until he actually DOES
> start there, based on his past record of saying anything to get his way
> and not actually doing it.
-------------------
That's because he has NO intent to hang around and be abused anymore.
He has his OWN ideas for what he wants next, and attempting to entice
him into a compromise with her only makes him loath himself for even
putting up with her ****. This is NOT over.


> I'm not sure it's an "all's well that ends well" scenario, yet, but I
> think it's on track to become one.
-------------
Hahahahahah.


>After reading this entire thread I
> just cannot find it in my heart to feel that she was WRONG to throw him
> out. I agreed with the posters who thought you just have to put up with
> their crap because it is your parental responsibility, but I also think
> that sometimes, as a parent, your best bet is to step back and let the kid
> face the consequences of their choices.
>
> So, anyway, there's the update.
>
> Wendy
---------------------
Will authoritarian morons NEVER learn?:

She directly confronted and offended his adulthood and autonomy by
insisting on such stupidity as curfews and such, and this is not at
ALL over! The first flush of their separation has pulled them back
like a rubber band, but a rubber band that is stretched gets longer
and weaker. Now REAL **** will hit the fan.
Steve

R. Steve Walz
August 3rd 03, 05:11 AM
Wendy Marsden wrote:
>
> toto > wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:32:12 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > How would he be a *slacker* if he was working and paid rent?
>
> His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.
------------
NO person's "job" is to do something not their choice, period!
It doesn't work.


> A kid
> given every opportunity and three different school situations in order to
> support his efforts in this area and yet does not do it - that is waht I'm
> calling a slacker.
------------------
Then all you are is wrong.
Steve

Barbara Bomberger
August 3rd 03, 12:02 PM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:32:12 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>
>So, third try. Let's say he doesn't do the work. Now he's turning
>18. They're not interested in running a boarding house for slacker kids
Okay so help me. If he's working and paying rent, how exactly is he a
slacker. Both my kids did not choose college after high school. They
lived at home and worked. They paid room and board. I never thought
of them as slackers even once, although I did hope tha tthings would
change, and they did. Some kids simply do know what to do with their
lives at eighteen. This doesnt make them misfits or slackers. It
makes them unique individuals. I figuired it was my job to help them
down that path, help them learn.

And as the parent paying the biills, I would certainly rather a child
lived at home and worked, that choose a schooling option they werent
comitted to. Your mileage may vary.

>even if he pays rent - he just isn't that enjoyable a house-mate.
this sentence says volumes to me. He's a difficult child, perhaps not
easy to get along with, and doesnt fall into the rank and file. Sound
slike a fairly normal kid to me. Seems to me this is the biggest
issue after all is said and done.
>told them to come get the lazy bum. They did and my older brother was
>well-served by a stint with Uncle Sam.)
And does he still feel the same way?

Barb
>
>Wendy

Barbara Bomberger
August 3rd 03, 12:09 PM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>toto > wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:32:12 GMT, Wendy Marsden
>> How would he be a *slacker* if he was working and paid rent?
>
>His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.
And I think this is an issue. I would say his job is to decide what
he wants to do with his life.
>given every opportunity and three different school situations in order to
>support his efforts in this area and yet does not do it - that is waht I'm
>calling a slacker.
Then perhaps this is not the appropriate effort to make? Perhaps he
needs to get a minimum wage job, pay room and board, and realize for
himself the import of school?

>I don't see any particular evidence that he would get a self-supporting
>job and pay rent without a GED. His summer job is just that - a teen-aged
>kid's summer job. It is recreation-related and won't last past Labor Day.
Then if he lived at home and paid rent and board, perhaps he would
soon realize that he had no disposable income and recognize the point
of finishing school.

>I believe the issue is that the mother wants her son to finish his base
>level education so that he will be ready to meet the challenges facing him
>in adulthood. She is trying to bring him to the point where he will do
>the work for himself. She has no wish to allow him the luxery of living
>at home and partying while neglecting his responsibilities.
>that there would be no talk of leaving home if he were making an effort at
>doing his studies.
OKay, maybe its me. Admittedly Im a hands off, let em learn by doing
parent. But I see some REAL control issues here as far as the
parents.
>
>> Sure. In fact, I don't see why she wants him home at this point
>> if she doesn't think very well of him.
>
>Wow. This woman LOVES him.
Your writing does not convey that. JUst the opposie, in my opinion.
And it sound slike she doesnt particularly think much of him, or enjoy
him as a person in his own right. Sounds to me like she has an image
of what he should be.
>came to the decision to throw him out after it became clear that nothing
>else was getting the kid on track. No, she doesn't think he's a paragon
>of a human being - he's a particularly self-absorbed seventeen year
>old.
But again, this sounds fairly normal.
>doesn't think well of him it is even all the more reason to want him to
>come home - so she can finish raising him.
Again, control issues. She needs to be helping him turn into an
adult. She should not be "raising" a seventeen year old in my
opinion.

Sorry If i'm misreading, but thats what I see.
>
Barb

Banty
August 3rd 03, 12:18 PM
In article >, Barbara says...
>

>I hope it goes well, but it would seem to me that any trust kid had in
>parent would be down the tubes at this point. Hopefully thier
>releationship can be repaired.
>>
>
>Barb

Indeed. But the lessons they're teaching their son - that adults shouldn't rely
on family, and that financial dependance means subjectation - might not create
the son they'd hope for when they're in their declining years.

Banty

Daye
August 3rd 03, 09:18 PM
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.

That is easily accomplished with taking the GED. You don't have to be
homeschooled or attend an HS to accomplish that.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

dragonlady
August 3rd 03, 09:51 PM
In article >,
Daye > wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > wrote:
>
> >His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.
>
> That is easily accomplished with taking the GED. You don't have to be
> homeschooled or attend an HS to accomplish that.


But, as several of us have pointed out in another thread, in some states
you CAN'T take the GED until you are 18, or until your "class" graduates
from high school.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Daye
August 3rd 03, 10:06 PM
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 20:51:37 GMT, dragonlady
> wrote:

>But, as several of us have pointed out in another thread, in some states
>you CAN'T take the GED until you are 18, or until your "class" graduates
>from high school.

Personally, I don't see the big deal. One test and he is done -- even
if he has to wait a few months.

In Australia, there is no such thing as a GED. If you don't finish
school, there is no test.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

Wendy Marsden
August 3rd 03, 10:22 PM
Daye > wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > wrote:

>>His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.

> That is easily accomplished with taking the GED. You don't have to be
> homeschooled or attend an HS to accomplish that.

Agreed, Jaye, but if you haven't done any of your school work in some
months and won't pass the GED you need to set up a program of study to
accomplish it. This is exactly what he isn't willing to do.

Wendy

Daye
August 3rd 03, 10:22 PM
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:22:14 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>Agreed, Jaye, but if you haven't done any of your school work in some
>months and won't pass the GED you need to set up a program of study to
>accomplish it. This is exactly what he isn't willing to do.

I didn't study for my GED, and I passed in the top 5% of the test
takers at the time. I then went to Uni where I maintained a min. of a
3.6 GPA.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

Daye
August 3rd 03, 10:59 PM
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:56:43 -0500, toto >
wrote:

>Well, that's nice, but it's anecdotal and not all teens can pass
>without studying.

Sure, it is anecdotal. However, everyone that I have ever known to
take and pass the GED did not study.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

Banty
August 3rd 03, 11:15 PM
In article >, Wendy says...
>
>Daye > wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
>> > wrote:
>
>>>His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.
>
>> That is easily accomplished with taking the GED. You don't have to be
>> homeschooled or attend an HS to accomplish that.
>
>Agreed, Jaye, but if you haven't done any of your school work in some
>months and won't pass the GED you need to set up a program of study to
>accomplish it. This is exactly what he isn't willing to do.
>
>Wendy

Then he'll find that he needs to do it *later*. Or, perhaps he needs to do it
in a way that isn't so gosh-darn planned-programmdy set-uppedity to satisfy
those around him who want him to do X and exactly X (or, you praise them that
they'll let him do Y instead, but it had better be exactly Y).

It's coming out all the seams in your posts and folks are pointing that out -
this is a teen over which the parents desire a lot of control, and
archetypically of those who desire a lot of control, have taken a black-white
approach to a very common adolescent phase, and exacerbated if not created a
problem. "Courses they set up", "set up a program", "he had a lot of input"
(hell, three generations ago Mr. "Had a Lot of Input" could be raising a family
and running a working farm).

Of course, this is one of those situations where we have to rely on your
telling, and what's telling is that your telling is telling, if you follow what
I mean. The picture that's emerging is a near-adult who is stifled and left
with no option workable for him, and is showing it.

Wendy - in your first post, you stated that his was an "intact" family. Do you
recognize the "throw away teen" syndrome when you see it, or do you think that
that the parents' marriage has been retained makes it something else?

Banty

toto
August 4th 03, 01:24 AM
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:28:26 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:

>IMHO any reasonably bright person can pass the GED whether they've
>done any work or now.

So high school is not worth doing then?

I haven't met many kids who can do algebra and geometry problems
without some exposure and study.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

R. Steve Walz
August 4th 03, 05:04 AM
dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Daye > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.
> >
> > That is easily accomplished with taking the GED. You don't have to be
> > homeschooled or attend an HS to accomplish that.
>
> But, as several of us have pointed out in another thread, in some states
> you CAN'T take the GED until you are 18, or until your "class" graduates
> from high school.
>
> meh
-----------
Then if a society wants them to study, they should make sure that
they present things in a way that appeals to them, and which they
want, because neither parents nor society can do their studying for
them, nor can it effectively punish them into it, that DOES NOT WORK,
because NO academic acheivement can be successfully coerced.

Otherwise the young person has NO obligation to parents and society
whatsoever. They have ONE life, and it is THEIRS to decide how to live,
and NOT YOU! You cannot abuse a person and then successfully sucker
them into liking it.
Steve

R. Steve Walz
August 4th 03, 05:20 AM
Wendy Marsden wrote:
>
> Daye > wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:32:47 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > > wrote:
>
> >>His "job" as a 17 year old is to finish his high school education.
>
> > That is easily accomplished with taking the GED. You don't have to be
> > homeschooled or attend an HS to accomplish that.
>
> Agreed, Jaye, but if you haven't done any of your school work in some
> months and won't pass the GED you need to set up a program of study to
> accomplish it. This is exactly what he isn't willing to do.
>
> Wendy
------------------
Then that is because someone has been abusing him, and you cannot get
achievement our of people by coercion or presenting unappetizing options
as the only ones, they'll tell you to jam it up your ass and become
criminals. A fair proportion of youth in Amerika do exactly that merely
because society is too stubborn to offer them decent and pleasing
opportunities.

You can blather all you want that they SHOULD do this or that and like
it or else lump it, but the PRAGMATIC problem is that if they DON'T
like it, they'll be LUMPING *YOU* ALL!

So if what you do doesn't interest them, then Phil McGraw might say: "So
how's that workin' for ya?"! If your prescription generates a criminal
class, crime, drug-dealers, poverty, millions of wasted
young people, and dozens of prisons and thousands of dead-end jobs
for police officers that produce nothing and consume vast resources,
instead of producing universities and breadwinners and products to
buy and sell, well then you'd just better try something else, no
matter WHAT your OWN abusive ****ing little religion or philosophy
might be, or what ignorant pet theory that flies in the face of all
known human psychology which you might hold oh so dear out of petty
spite might demand you hold out for!!
Steve

Rosalie B.
August 4th 03, 05:20 AM
x-no-archive:yes toto > wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:28:26 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:
>
>>IMHO any reasonably bright person can pass the GED whether they've
>>done any work or now.
>
>So high school is not worth doing then?
>
>I haven't met many kids who can do algebra and geometry problems
>without some exposure and study.

Is that on the GED? What about kids that are in the technical courses
and never take anything but general math? Is everyone required to
take algebra now? And geometry?

In any case, it doesn't take 4 years to have SOME exposure. I had
most of Algebra 1 in 8th grade although it was an experimental class
when I did it. And even when I was teaching, most of the academic
kids had algebra in the 8th grade.

IMHO (as both a mother and a former teacher) HS and more especially
middle school is just a place we put kids while we wait for them to
grow up. It's usually necessary as a holding tank waiting for that to
happen. Most of the time even the bright ones don't remember much
about HS and what subjects they took. At least that's the case going
on my own kids who were certainly bright enough.

When I was in school, a fair percentage of kids were sent to college
after their sophomore HS year - I was offered a scholarship to do
that, which my dad turned down because he thought I didn't have the
maturity, and my roommate in college had one of them - she entered
college right after her sophomore HS year, so she was 2 years younger
than most of the others in her class, and graduated when she was 19
(with a Phi Beta Kappa - we went to Oberlin College in Ohio).


grandma Rosalie

R. Steve Walz
August 4th 03, 05:38 AM
toto wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:28:26 GMT, Rosalie B.
> > wrote:
>
> >IMHO any reasonably bright person can pass the GED whether they've
> >done any work or now.
>
> So high school is not worth doing then?
---------------
YES! Mostly true! It is a child-care center. Everything taught most
students in high school can be learned nearly ten times faster when
one finally wants to do so, see Summerhill School, A.S. Neill, et
alia. The current conformation of high school culture is merely
abusive, not very educative, and wastes the students' time which
should be theirs to develop other deprived talents, interests and
faculties.


> I haven't met many kids who can do algebra and geometry problems
> without some exposure and study.
> Dorothy
-----------------
That need not be more than a book and another knowledgable adult or
student to check some work periodically and answer questions on things
that may confuse, and even that isn't needed with multiple books to
study at the same level, as each author has strong points and weak
points.

The Truth that people are being dense about with all this is that
"students" (and I use the word laughingly) who are actually unable
to learn this material on their own, need remedial work at a lower
level, and THAT study they CAN do themselves IF THEY WANT TO, and
before they absolutely want to it is a TOTAL and COMPLETE WASTE OF
TIME to try to teach them.

Public education is a farce like unto the adults who pretend that
they're teaching a child to walk or to pee in the potty, when it is
THE CHILD who is simply ready to learn it, or developed enough to
start the learning process and desirous of doing so.

Before they are developed enough to learn, and unless they are
desirous of doing so, they can't. Some idiotic parents believe
this is a form of disobedience, it is not. Instead it is why any
and all efforts to instill "obedience" are fraudulent and flawed.
Steve

R. Steve Walz
August 4th 03, 05:41 AM
Daye wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:24:54 -0500, toto >
> wrote:
>
> >I haven't met many kids who can do algebra and geometry problems
> >without some exposure and study.
>
> Only very basic geometry is on the GED or it was in the early 90s.
>
> When my nephew was 7, he could do basic algebra. "Something plus 5
> equals 10. What is the something?"
> Daye
-------------------
My son and daughter both did this at age three, and learned formal
algebra later that same year. They were solving basic quadratic
equations by age 4 or 4.5 and graphing them.
Steve

toto
August 4th 03, 07:41 AM
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:20:56 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:

>Is that on the GED? What about kids that are in the technical courses
>and never take anything but general math? Is everyone required to
>take algebra now? And geometry?
>
The requirements for graduation have changed so that Algebra I
and Geometry are now required. The courses have been changed
as well, to an extent so that there are courses in Algebra that take
two years in some cases and geometry without proofs is offered
for students who are not up to the traditional geometry classes.

>In any case, it doesn't take 4 years to have SOME exposure. I had
>most of Algebra 1 in 8th grade although it was an experimental class
>when I did it. And even when I was teaching, most of the academic
>kids had algebra in the 8th grade.

Interesting.. When I went to high school, algebra was a 9th grade
class.. When my son and dd took it, the brightest kids took it
in 6th grade, the next took it in 7th and the next took it in 8th, but
there were still kids who took it in 9th and there were still kids
who could not pass it at that point. Geometry honors at my kids
school was taken also by kids in all grades at the middle school,
but they went to the high school to take it if they were not in high
school already. There were a variety of kids in that school, of
course, but remember that nowadays a larger percentage goes
on to college than was the case when I was in school. Unfortunately,
many of them are not really ready for college even though they have
been forced into academic classes to graduate from high school.

I don't know if the GED has changed to reflect the state requirements,
though since I have not seen a test in a long time. I suppose I
should look at the newer additions of the GED test booklets and
see.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Banty
August 4th 03, 03:39 PM
In article >, Wendy says...
>
>Banty > wrote:
>
>>Wendy - in your first post, you stated that his was an "intact" family. Do you
>>recognize the "throw away teen" syndrome when you see it, or do you think that
>> that the parents' marriage has been retained makes it something else?
>
>I'm intimately familiar with the throw-away teen syndrome. Both my
>sister and I left home at 17, too. A few of my brothers had it worse. My
>family was NOT intact. This situation is markedly different
>and that is precisely why I referred to them as an intact family.
>

I know. But this is why I sense that, if a situation isn't *exactly* like your
situation - the teens not fititng in 'cause Mom is geared to romances rather
than her kids and tensions between nearly grown man-childs and woman-childs and
the new mate, then you dont' recognize it. From my reading, your friends' young
man isn't fitting into *their* household due to what looks like may largely be a
tempramental mismatch, but mostly that they're not willing to really live with
another adult in the house - is what makes *their* teen not fit in, and why
*their*solution is just to have him be out. Different reasons - you may think
them nobler - but same result.

Like I said in an earlier post - good friends of mine did at one point kick a
son out. But he was 19 nearly 20 at the time, and they kept enough touch with
him to make sure the connection was still there. It wasnt' to show him how he
was still a kid and had better come back and tow the line because he can't make
it in the 'real world' - it was to show him that he *can* now function as a man!
Very fundamental difference.

This strikes me as more of a punitive situation.

>I think you're confusing "control" with "standards" at several
>levels. These people are concerned with some outputs, not necessarily how
>he does it. This isn't about lipping off to them or missing curfews.

I think you're confusing control with "standards". *The parents* are signing
him up for classes, the *parents* are giving him choices as if he's a toddler.
If they're only 'concerned with outputs', why is it that it's of concern that he
doesn't have a 'study plan' for a GED? The whole attitude and atmosphere is
quite authoritarian, allows for only two scenarios, and remember from the OP
much of the impetus for kicking him out (not fitting in the household anymore -
sound familliar) is that they want some Fear of God or whatever drummed into the
younger sibs.

Exactly why is it so unacceptable that he work (a real job, or at least more
real than lifeguarding or whatever - I was a department store custodian at that
age) and contribute as an adult to the household, and live by more adult rules?

Banty

H Schinske
August 4th 03, 05:34 PM
wrote:

>And one thing to consider is that a GED, for good or bad, does not carry the
>same weight as a high school diploma for college admissions or in the
>workforce. They're not equivalent. So, unless a child has a clear plan for
>the future and knows the GED will satisfy it, it may not be the best option.

It all depends. A bright student can find other ways to show capability -- test
scores, good grades in community college classes, that kind of thing -- to show
ability that will get them into a highly-regarded college, even if not an
absolutely top-tier one. It may take a little longer, but it's certainly still
doable.

--Helen

Wendy Marsden
August 4th 03, 05:46 PM
Banty > wrote:
> This strikes me as more of a punitive situation.

Punitive in a natural consequences sort of way. I agree. And yes,
there's a control issue - whether the kid is submitting to parental
authority.

The parents laid down the law that a 17 year old needed to be working on
achieving a base-level education. Homeschooling, community college, a
summer of making up a failed class - I think there was a great deal of
leeway in what constituted working on the base-level education.

You (and others) seem to think that is unreasonably controlling of them,
yet think it would be acceptable for them to demand that he get a job and
pay rent. It's like it's okay for them to demand money from the kid but
not to demand anything else. To me this sounds like you're just back to
square one when the kid DOESN'T pay up.

Think this through. The kid doesn't have an education. He can't get a
decent job. He can't pay the rent. Do you now throw him out because
he didn't pay you? Is it better to throw him out for lack of money (when
throwing him out can't possibly improve the situation) or throw him out
until he decides to finish his education (when throwing him out might
allow him to get more motivated?) I mean really, which one is in the
kid's best interest?

In the best of all worlds the kid will decide on a future for
himself. This kid wasn't, he was just doing stalling tactics without
living up to the agreements he made.

> I think you're confusing control with "standards". *The parents* are signing
> him up for classes, the *parents* are giving him choices as if he's a toddler.
> If they're only 'concerned with outputs', why is it that it's of concern that he
> doesn't have a 'study plan' for a GED?

No, he has a study plan. I have every reason to believe he was
involved in designing his course of study, but we're not talking art
history here, we're talking base level math and English. He is not DOING
the study plan. He's not PASSING the classes. He's not DOING his
homeschooling.

And he's not doing the work because he would rather play X-Box and talk on
the phone and visit with his buddies and play his sport. He isn't fitting
in either schoolwork OR his chores. His parents ARE NOT controlling in
the sense that they have the kid chained down. If he isn't home to do
this it falls on him to handle the consequences.

> Exactly why is it so unacceptable that he work (a real job, or at least more
> real than lifeguarding or whatever - I was a department store custodian at that
> age) and contribute as an adult to the household, and live by more adult rules?

I'm not sure the idea of him quitting school and getting a job and paying
rent was ever put on the table. There is no history in their family of
grown kids coming back home. (There isn't in my family, either.)

If you are going to live by more adult rules, why not live with the rule
that you only get to live at home if you are being supported while getting
an education? It's maybe not the rule you'd pick, but it doesn't seem
like a bad one.

Wendy

Wendy Marsden
August 4th 03, 06:44 PM
H Schinske > wrote:
> wrote:
>>And one thing to consider is that a GED, for good or bad, does not carry the
>>same weight as a high school diploma for college admissions or in the
>>workforce. They're not equivalent. So, unless a child has a clear plan for
>>the future and knows the GED will satisfy it, it may not be the best option.

> It all depends. A bright student can find other ways to show capability -- test
> scores, good grades in community college classes, that kind of thing -- to show
> ability that will get them into a highly-regarded college, even if not an
> absolutely top-tier one. It may take a little longer, but it's certainly still
> doable.

I agree with this. A GED is a reasonable stalling place while a kid gets
his act together. In the case of the child I'm talking about, a stellar
academic career doesn't appear to be in the cards. A GED would give him a
base that he can build upon later if he so chooses.

I also think that GEDs are more common among home-schoolers and are
accepted more easily as such.

Wendy

Daye
August 4th 03, 10:40 PM
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 01:41:54 -0500, toto >
wrote:

>I don't know if the GED has changed to reflect the state requirements,
>though since I have not seen a test in a long time. I suppose I
>should look at the newer additions of the GED test booklets and
>see.

In the early 90s (when I took the GED), it had only the most basic of
geometry (like what you would learn in Algebra) and no real advanced
Algebra. Math isn't my best subject. I still scored really high on
that section of the test.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

Wendy Marsden
August 5th 03, 04:02 PM
Chookie > wrote:

> I think we have a bad combination of silly young man and overprotective
> parents here, and that keeping them apart is probably a good thing. I don't
> dispute that they love him; it's just that some expressions of love aren't
> really good for you in the long run.

> I think it would be better if he grew up away from home. In fact, I would say
> it's beginning to look like a necessary condition.

You understand that the young man in question has left home? He said he
wasn't a kid anymore and could quit school if he wanted, and his parents
said, "fine, leave, we only provide housing to children who are under our
authority." I don't see how that can be construed as overprotective.

Throughout this thread people have made it clear that they are comfortable
with having some requirements of their adult children who live at home -
most have said they have to pay rent. Why not have the requirement that
they have to be in school? To me this makes a WHOLE lot more sense: they
can pay rent anywhere. Who else is going to allow them to waive the rent
while they spend their work-days pursuing education?

This mother HOPES the kid will continue his education. She isn't willing
to let him give up on it without facing the consequences. She is still
trying to support him in such a way as he will finish high school. But
she isn't MAKING him do it. The kid doesn't live at home. He is clearly
making his own choices. He could go find a job and live as an adult now.

Do you feel it is over-protective and controlling to go with him
to enroll him in classes at the high-school? He was home-schooled for
most of his life and there is an overwhelming amount of bureaucracy
involved with enrolling him in his courses. (The first thing the
guidance counselor said was, "I'm sorry, you're going to have to
talk the Superintendent of Schools", to which my friend said, "No I
don't, I have to talk to you.") I recall being very grateful for my own
mother's intervention in helping me get the classes I wanted in high
school.

Dealing with bureaucracies is one of the last skills a teen-ager picks up,
in my experience. (I recall my youngest brother having his driver's
license seized in a traffic stop. He was completely incapable of jumping
through the hoops required to get it back by himself.)

Wendy

Rosalie B.
August 5th 03, 05:39 PM
x-no-archive:yes
Wendy Marsden > wrote:

>Chookie > wrote:
>
>> I think we have a bad combination of silly young man and overprotective
>> parents here, and that keeping them apart is probably a good thing. I don't
>> dispute that they love him; it's just that some expressions of love aren't
>> really good for you in the long run.
>
>> I think it would be better if he grew up away from home. In fact, I would say
>> it's beginning to look like a necessary condition.
>
>You understand that the young man in question has left home? He said he
>wasn't a kid anymore and could quit school if he wanted, and his parents
>said, "fine, leave, we only provide housing to children who are under our
>authority." I don't see how that can be construed as overprotective.
>
>Throughout this thread people have made it clear that they are comfortable
>with having some requirements of their adult children who live at home -
>most have said they have to pay rent. Why not have the requirement that
>they have to be in school? To me this makes a WHOLE lot more sense: they
>can pay rent anywhere. Who else is going to allow them to waive the rent
>while they spend their work-days pursuing education?

I think what most of us (going out on a limb here) meant was that
**IF he was NOT going to school and getting an education
**THEN he would have to pay rent.

So he gets to chose - either live home rent free and go to school and
make something out of himself, or live home, pay rent and act like any
normal boarder in a house would act.
>
>This mother HOPES the kid will continue his education. She isn't willing
>to let him give up on it without facing the consequences. She is still
>trying to support him in such a way as he will finish high school. But
>she isn't MAKING him do it. The kid doesn't live at home. He is clearly
>making his own choices. He could go find a job and live as an adult now.
>
>Do you feel it is over-protective and controlling to go with him
>to enroll him in classes at the high-school? He was home-schooled for
>most of his life and there is an overwhelming amount of bureaucracy
>involved with enrolling him in his courses. (The first thing the

It may be that he needs someone to run interference for him, but it
may also be that he needs to do it himself as difficult as that will
be for him. The first enrollment from home schooling, he wasn't an
adult, right? So he might have needed help there.

I ran interference for my son and did all for him that I could. He
finished HS by the skin of his teeth, due to my running interference.
It is only just now that he has decided he needs more education (and
he's 32 now) and when he has to do it himself that he's taking it
seriously. He didn't before. He's so proud of himself, to have found
funding for his education and jumped all the hurdles by himself. He
wouldn't have that if I had done it for him.

>guidance counselor said was, "I'm sorry, you're going to have to
>talk the Superintendent of Schools", to which my friend said, "No I
>don't, I have to talk to you.") I recall being very grateful for my own
>mother's intervention in helping me get the classes I wanted in high
>school.

>Dealing with bureaucracies is one of the last skills a teen-ager picks up,
>in my experience. (I recall my youngest brother having his driver's
>license seized in a traffic stop. He was completely incapable of jumping
>through the hoops required to get it back by himself.)

I don't know that I wouldn't have explained to him how to do it and
then let him do it (or not) by himself.

My dd#3 was going away to school - she was 18 and had a driver's
license. My dad bought a truck and put it in her name and fixed it up
and got it inspected. She went to the DMV and they said - you have to
get your dad's signature to get a license for this truck. She didn't.
She was 18 and was an adult and didn't need her parent's signatures
for anything. (She did look very young for her age as do I and all my
children.) So her daddy signed it (fuming) and she took it back and
the next clerk she got to said - I don't know why you did that - you
don't need to.

So my children ask me for advice on things, and I tell them what I've
found out and experienced, and they go ahead on their own. And when
they decide not to do what I would do, I try to keep quiet about it.


grandma Rosalie

Wendy Marsden
August 5th 03, 06:05 PM
Banty > wrote:

> Why was he homeschooled?

Because my friend wanted the very best education possible for her
children. Her grown children are doing very well - one moving up the
ranks in the military, another is a high achiever in a challenging
academic career. Some of her younger children have occasionally enrolled
in the public schools and they find it stifling to sit in a classroom
learning stuff the already know. They like it for the social aspect,
though.

My friend has always dipped in and out of the public school system,
enrolling her children in individual classes, etc. based on their
preference and need. They are very active in a homeschooling support
group and do many enriching activities, too.

I homeschool my kids in the summer and learned quite a lot from her about
setting up a curriculum and setting up structure in the day for
schoolwork.

I'm not sure if you are wondering if they homeschool so they can protect
their children from pernicious ideas or something - I don't believe that
is the case. I believe they homeschool because they thought it was the
best way to educate the children. They value education highly, if you
haven't noticed. There doesn't appear to be any religious element. The
kids sometimes go to a mainstream brick church in town with their
grandparents, but I haven't spotted any particular frothing at the mouth
about satanic influences, for example. (My friend and I waited in line at
the bookstore at midnight together with our middle-school-aged children
when Harry Potter came out.)

Honestly, I've known her to be a very responsive parent to her individual
children's needs. If anything, I find her a bit overly sympathetic.
For example, one child is (IMO) overly disposed towards whining when we're
on field trips. She's crooning "poor baby" while I'm more like, "cut the
crap, we don't need to hear it.") BTW, she has rather a lot of
children. The one under discussion is near the middle of the bunch.

-- Wendy

Wendy Marsden
August 5th 03, 06:14 PM
Banty > wrote:
> That may be so just from a non-compatibility POV. I mysefl had to get the heck
> out of my home of origin to be able to make any progress - this may be the
> silver lining on a punitively motivated plan. But the 17 year old's knowledge
> that it was the parents doing rather than his own that can sour that.

I'm not sure if it's the silver lining or the whole point, Banty.
Besides, the parents set up the terms, but he chose what action to
take. I see no evidence that he is soured towards his parents over their
terms.

I still don't think it's punitive. In fact, my whole interest in
exploring this subject is to think about exactly how we *DO* handle the
transition from "child under my authority" to "fledgling adult".

I don't think punishment is the right lens to view this through.

>>You understand that the young man in question has left home? He said he
>>wasn't a kid anymore and could quit school if he wanted, and his parents
>>said, "fine, leave, we only provide housing to children who are under our
>>authority." I don't see how that can be construed as overprotective.

> That's authoritarian, at the least.

Okay. There's a military tradition in this family and I can believe
they'd have an authoritarian culture. They've got a lot of heart, though,
and I can't see *different* as *bad* in this case.

> The big difference is that the rent-paying, etc., is taking on an adult role,
> while the education, etc., is still having the *parent's* plan. The
> motivation for that requirement is still that the Parents Know Best, and that
> often is just the rub. It makes sense to *you*, because *you* have an idea
> about what's best, but it may not be what the young man has in mind.

Okay. Fair point. I'm not sure why they would have to allow him to stay
at home and be rent-paying if they're not comfortable in that role, but I
can see what you mean about it being an adult role under his plan.

> If they start treating him like an adult - he may start *acting* like one.

I believe that is what she's trying by telling him - he can't keep living
the life of a kid at home if he is actually an adult. In your experience,
in my experience and in their experience, adults don't live with their
parents.

Wendy

Banty
August 5th 03, 06:40 PM
In article >, Wendy says...
>
>Banty > wrote:
>>That may be so just from a non-compatibility POV. I mysefl had to get the heck
>> out of my home of origin to be able to make any progress - this may be the
>>silver lining on a punitively motivated plan. But the 17 year old's knowledge
>> that it was the parents doing rather than his own that can sour that.
>
>I'm not sure if it's the silver lining or the whole point, Banty.
>Besides, the parents set up the terms, but he chose what action to
>take. I see no evidence that he is soured towards his parents over their
>terms.
>
>I still don't think it's punitive. In fact, my whole interest in
>exploring this subject is to think about exactly how we *DO* handle the
>transition from "child under my authority" to "fledgling adult".
>

Are you really "exploring this subject"? Several contributors, some with teens
and past the teen years, have brought up the idea of a transitional period of
living at home but paying rent and living by adult-like boarder rules while the
young person gets set up or otherwise gets their act together. But I dont' see
you "exploring" that, rather defending your friend's choice.

If you want to "explore" - explore why the child should be sudden - parental
rules or Outta This House, vs. a true transitional period.

>I don't think punishment is the right lens to view this through.
>
>>>You understand that the young man in question has left home? He said he
>>>wasn't a kid anymore and could quit school if he wanted, and his parents
>>>said, "fine, leave, we only provide housing to children who are under our
>>>authority." I don't see how that can be construed as overprotective.
>
>> That's authoritarian, at the least.
>
>Okay. There's a military tradition in this family and I can believe
>they'd have an authoritarian culture. They've got a lot of heart, though,
>and I can't see *different* as *bad* in this case.

My family also has a military tradition. I grew up as a military dependant of a
career Air Force officer. IME being authoritairan in actions concering
parenting are more a matter of parental temprament and what their own upbringing
was like.

>
>> The big difference is that the rent-paying, etc., is taking on an adult role,
>> while the education, etc., is still having the *parent's* plan. The
>> motivation for that requirement is still that the Parents Know Best, and that
>> often is just the rub. It makes sense to *you*, because *you* have an idea
>> about what's best, but it may not be what the young man has in mind.
>
>Okay. Fair point. I'm not sure why they would have to allow him to stay
>at home and be rent-paying if they're not comfortable in that role, but I
>can see what you mean about it being an adult role under his plan.
>
>> If they start treating him like an adult - he may start *acting* like one.
>
>I believe that is what she's trying by telling him - he can't keep living
>the life of a kid at home if he is actually an adult. In your experience,
>in my experience and in their experience, adults don't live with their
>parents.

*My* personal experience is that a dysfunctional household best be left by the
grown children, and from what I understand *your* personal experience is that a
dysfunctional household best be left by the grown children. But by far it does
not follow that "adults don't live with their parents"! I would hope that, and
certainly observe that, a lot of families have a greater degree of
functionality, at least that's what *I* would take as an example. In my
experience with other families, there are many families who amicably make all
sorts of arrangements. Especially families that get along. Your friends'
family may be artificially limiting their choices. Or maybe not.


Banty

Barbara Bomberger
August 5th 03, 07:04 PM
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:46:49 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>Banty > wrote:
>> This strikes me as more of a punitive situation.
>
>Punitive in a natural consequences sort of way. I agree. And yes,
>there's a control issue - whether the kid is submitting to parental
>authority.

Okay. This is a KID who will be an adult shortly. Making the primary
issue PARENTAL AUTHORITY with a seventeen year old is inappropriate
in my opinion. I speak from the experience of having had a few here
and there.

Good parent ing should allow for the slow loosening or release (for
lack of a better word) of parental athority. While I may make every
decision and rule for my sixth grader, the rules would lessen as my
children got older, alllowing the child more control and the parent
(me) less. Part of that loosenbing is accpeting that children will
make what you consider mistakes, and that they will express themselves
in an individaul fashion. All children in a family will not react the
same way, nor should they. This is one of the problems I have with the
"rules" "controls" and "standards issues"

some rules obviously must remain. In our case some basic house rules
relating to basic health and cleanliness, and respect for our worries,
I can only pray that the general respect and kindness lessons from
the previous years remain.
>
>The parents laid down the law that a 17 year old needed to be working on
>achieving a base-level education. Homeschooling, community college, a
>summer of making up a failed class - I think there was a great deal of
>leeway in what constituted working on the base-level education.

Okay, and I am truly not trying just to be argumentative here. It may
sound like it. But the phrase "Laid down the law to a seventeen year
old" implies extreme control in my case. Now, if said kids was using
drugs, abusing or hurting family members, we would have adifferent
situation. From what I see, kid is not fulliflling parent's wishes .
>
>You (and others) seem to think that is unreasonably controlling of them,
>yet think it would be acceptable for them to demand that he get a job and
>pay rent. It's like it's okay for them to demand money from the kid but
>not to demand anything else. To me this sounds like you're just back to
>square one when the kid DOESN'T pay up.

WEll, in my experience (and that of others) if a kid has to work a
minimum job and pay rent, it does at least two things. First, it
gives me as amom peace of mind. I could never, never never, through
my kid out and not know where he spent even one night or what he was
eating. Could not do it, period. Secondly, in that scenario, the kid
will often "see the light" while still at home and have a chance to
make other choices that parents can support him in.
>
>Think this through. The kid doesn't have an education. He can't get a
>decent job. He can't pay the rent. Do you now throw him out because
>he didn't pay you? Is it better to throw him out for lack of money (when
>throwing him out can't possibly improve the situation) or throw him out
>until he decides to finish his education (when throwing him out might
>allow him to get more motivated?) I mean really, which one is in the
>kid's best interest?

Again, you dont throw the kid out period.

If the kid is so difficult to live with, and the personality clash is
so great, I would help him find a place to live and help him get on
his feet. I personally would never throw my child out.
>>> Exactly why is it so unacceptable that he work (a real job, or at least more
>> real than lifeguarding or whatever - I was a department store custodian at that
>> age) and contribute as an adult to the household, and live by more adult rules?
>
>I'm not sure the idea of him quitting school and getting a job and paying
>rent was ever put on the table. There is no history in their family of
>grown kids coming back home. (There isn't in my family, either.)
Well then perhaps the parents should consider changing the history,
instead of assuming the kids are cookie cutters of each other and
their parents.

Barb

toto
August 5th 03, 07:28 PM
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:02:18 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>Chookie > wrote:
>
>> I think we have a bad combination of silly young man and overprotective
>> parents here, and that keeping them apart is probably a good thing. I don't
>> dispute that they love him; it's just that some expressions of love aren't
>> really good for you in the long run.
>
>> I think it would be better if he grew up away from home. In fact, I would say
>> it's beginning to look like a necessary condition.
>
>You understand that the young man in question has left home? He
>said he wasn't a kid anymore and could quit school if he wanted,
>and his parents said, "fine, leave, we only provide housing to children
>who are under our authority." I don't see how that can be construed as
>overprotective.
>
But now they want him back and they haven't allowed him to actually
experience the consequences which involve having to get a job and
live on his own including cooking, cleaning, paying rent, etc. So he
still has no idea what this involves.

>Throughout this thread people have made it clear that they are comfortable
>with having some requirements of their adult children who live at home -
>most have said they have to pay rent. Why not have the requirement that
>they have to be in school? To me this makes a WHOLE lot more sense: they
>can pay rent anywhere. Who else is going to allow them to waive the rent
>while they spend their work-days pursuing education?
>
You cannot make a teenager do either. It's not that you have
requirements, you make it his choice - go to school, or work and
contribute to the household. It doesn't have to be rent actually, it
can be working around the house, cooking his own meals, cleaning
his own clothing, and in general acting like an adult. But it has to
be his choice. There *is* no way to make him study or to make him
get a job unless you are willing to allow him to live on his own and
to really let him do this for long enough where he sees the light on
his own and decides what he really needs to do for himself.

>This mother HOPES the kid will continue his education. She isn't
>willing to let him give up on it without facing the consequences. She
>is still trying to support him in such a way as he will finish high school.
>But she isn't MAKING him do it. The kid doesn't live at home. He is
>clearly making his own choices. He could go find a job and live as
>an adult now.
>
Then let him do it and stop trying to pressure him to come home
and finish school. When he does decide what he wants, he will
go after it.

Also, given the circumstances, if he does say he wants to go back
to school, I would look into learning disabilities and ask him if he
is willing to be tested for them. If he is, then he might do a lot
better in his classes if he got some help with this. Parents
sometimes overlook learning problems or don't want to admit
them and I suspect that this *may* be the case with this young man.

>Do you feel it is over-protective and controlling to go with him
>to enroll him in classes at the high-school? He was home-schooled
>for most of his life and there is an overwhelming amount of
>bureaucracy involved with enrolling him in his courses. (The first
>thing the guidance counselor said was, "I'm sorry, you're going to
>have to talk the Superintendent of Schools", to which my friend said,
>"No I don't, I have to talk to you.") I recall being very grateful for my
>own mother's intervention in helping me get the classes I wanted in
>high school.
>
Yes, in this case I think it is overprotective. I think that he
should have gone himself. His mom could have come along as
backup, but there is no reason to shelter him from the beauracracy.

Whether he has been homeschooled or not, at almost 18, it's time
to stop protecting him from the world.

While my kids where not homeschooled, they didn't have to choose
their own curriculum in elementary or middle school, but they did in
high school and while I backed them up on their choices (and my dd
went against some of my choices for her), I didn't go into the
guidance counsellor without them and only went in if they needed
my support.

>Dealing with bureaucracies is one of the last skills a teen-ager
>picks up, in my experience. (I recall my youngest brother having
>his driver's license seized in a traffic stop. He was completely
>incapable of jumping through the hoops required to get it back
>by himself.)
>
You support, but you can't do it for him.

And if he couldn't jump through the hoops, then perhaps he
needed to have it stay lost for a while. He might decide how
to get through the hoops all by himself.

>Wendy


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto
August 5th 03, 07:43 PM
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:14:17 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>I still don't think it's punitive. In fact, my whole interest in
>exploring this subject is to think about exactly how we *DO*
>handle the transition from "child under my authority" to
>"fledgling adult".

Well, here is my take on that.

You begin early to give your children choices and let them
experience the consequences when the choice turns out badly.
This begins even with 3 year olds.

If he falls down, you help him up, but you don't say *you have
to get back on the bike* or *you can't ride the bike* afterwards.
You encourage him, but you let this be his choice.

Later as she is older, you give her an allowance and let her
make choices about what she buys. If she buys something
that falls apart, you can talk about it, but you don't replace the
toy and you don't chastise her for making a bad decision,
you help her learn from the process. And you allow her to
experience the fact that if she wants to replace the toy with
something better, she may have to save for a bit to do
that.

As they grow, you require them to help keep the household
running, but you don't assign chores, you brainstorm with
them about what needs to be done and help them choose
chores that are compatible with their age and interests, and
ones that contribute for real to the running of the house. You
let them do these chores on their own schedule not on yours.
If you have more than one child, you let them work out switching
chores when they have other activities that are important to
them.

You consult, communicate, brainstorm solutions to problems
with your children rather than expecting *obedience* to your
rules. When problems happen, you make sure the kids have
a say. You don't, however, give in to solutions that don't fit
your own needs. You make sure solutions fit the family
including the adults.

As kids grow into the teen years, you keep loosening the reins
gradually. If they do fail a class in school, it is their
responsibility, not yours. You support them, you look for
solutions (again you brainstorm with them about the problem,
rather than saying you will take this course of action). If they
need academic help, you provide it through tutors, through
one on one help from you, through perhaps getting some
specific help for learning disabilities they may have.

It's *hard* to let go, but you have to do it and it is best if it is a
gradual process beginning from toddlerhood.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

H Schinske
August 5th 03, 08:49 PM
Wendy ) wrote:

>I believe that is what she's trying by telling him - he can't keep living
>the life of a kid at home if he is actually an adult. In your experience,
>in my experience and in their experience, adults don't live with their
>parents.

Well, my family must suffer from seriously arrested development, then. We've
had adults (and spouses, and kids) living at home at various times for years.

--Helen

toto
August 5th 03, 09:25 PM
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:05:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>But I would have said that the family we're discussing is pretty high
>functioning. They're at an awkward time, but it's really stretching the
>term to suggest that they're disfunctional because they insist that their
>kid finish high school OR ELSE.

But what *is* the or else? They aren't just letting him go at this
point and they have no leverage.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Wendy Marsden
August 5th 03, 10:02 PM
toto > wrote:
> Well, here is my take on that.

I really appreciate your post. It gave me a lot to think about - I think
I'm being too dictatorial about chores for example. (They can pick their
chores from a very narrow list of choices but I specify when chore time
is. Then again, my kids are only 4, 10 and 12.)

> You consult, communicate, brainstorm solutions to problems
> with your children rather than expecting *obedience* to your
> rules. When problems happen, you make sure the kids have
> a say. You don't, however, give in to solutions that don't fit
> your own needs. You make sure solutions fit the family
> including the adults.

I agree in principle, but don't you still have some non-negotiable
standards? Someone else mentioned that all they required was basic hygene
for health purposes. I would put basic level math and English as just as
important for their over-all well-being.

A solution where the kid says, "I'm dropping out of school" does NOT fit
the entire family's needs - specifically, the CHILD'S needs. At least not
in this case, where he wasn't dropping out with a plan. I mean, if he
wanted to drop out because it was keeping him from starring in a big
skateboarding tournament and he wanted to follow his dream, well, I can
see letting him make his mistakes (or grab for the brass ring.) But if
he's dropping out because he doesn't want to study (and doesn't want to do
anything else, either) then I just can't see supporting him (literally) in
this decision.

I'm not sure why you think the child has undiscovered learning
disabilities when his mother has worked closely with him for many, many
years. I know she has availed herself of professional referrals for some
of her children. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it isn't
a good assumption. I think he isn't studying because he doesn't
want to. I've proofread the kid's papers - he needs to work on his
grammar, but I'd say he isn't particularly deficient in ability.

Wendy

Daye
August 5th 03, 10:10 PM
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:02:18 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>"fine, leave, we only provide housing to children who are under our
>authority." I don't see how that can be construed as overprotective.

My God!! They said that???

My mother would never, ever, ever, ever say that to me. I always have
a home with my mother. If I am 75 and she is 97, I have a home with
my mother. I haven't been under her authority since I was a
youngster.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

Wendy Marsden
August 5th 03, 10:33 PM
toto > wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:05:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden wrote:

>>But I would have said that the family we're discussing is pretty high
>>functioning. They're at an awkward time, but it's really stretching the
>>term to suggest that they're disfunctional because they insist that their
>>kid finish high school OR ELSE.

> But what *is* the or else? They aren't just letting him go at this
> point and they have no leverage.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The "or else" in the above
paragraph was "or else move out of this house because we don't support
adults." She then had to let him move out and spend the rest of the
summer outside her influence. That WAS just letting him go.

You're right that they don't have any leverage (did they ever?)
unless he WANTS to return. It's his choice and he knows the terms.

Are you saying that it is bad to withhold support if he doesn't attend
school? I think that's what Barb was saying. I don't disagree - it makes
me uncomfortable as I don't think the kid is ready to be on his own. I
supported the mother in this because she thought it was the best way to
convince the kid that he really had to finish high school - she just can't
chain him to the desk, nor can she punish him for bad marks. She was
desperate for something to get him to understand the consequences of not
doing his work.

Wendy

Bruce and Jeanne
August 5th 03, 11:30 PM
toto wrote:
> Then let him do it and stop trying to pressure him to come home
> and finish school. When he does decide what he wants, he will
> go after it.
>

I totally agree with Dorothy. After seeing what happens to teens (ages
15-19) who are told what to do and basically doing things only because
their parents said so (the authorative approach), it seems best to let
the teen decide when and how he/she will finish high school.

If they can't get a decent job without a high school diploma, let them
experience that instead of being told. I've seen several people who did
graduate from high school but didn't go onto college per parents'
expectations. Same thing, different education level. What happens is
the parents will "strongly encourage" the child to attend college who
then drops out. Then, the child usually finds a career path that
interests them and then realizes college is necessary and is eager to
go.

> Yes, in this case I think it is overprotective. I think that he
> should have gone himself. His mom could have come along as
> backup, but there is no reason to shelter him from the beauracracy.
>

Yep. At 17, you need to be able to negotiate a bureacracy because
whether you're on your own at 18 or you decide to go to college -
there's bureacracy to deal with. When I wanted to take college courses
as a high school senior, my parents didn't tell me how to go about it
(they didn't know any more than me). If I wanted to do it, I had to get
the application from the college, talk to the HS guidance counselor (who
also knew nothing) and principal and then figure out an acceptable
schedule. No parent intervention.

The point being *I* wanted to do something so I went after it. On the
other hand, if taking college courses were my parents' idea you bet I
wouldn't have been able to tackle the bureacracy.

Jeanne

toto
August 6th 03, 02:20 AM
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:33:55 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>toto > wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:05:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden wrote:
>
>>>But I would have said that the family we're discussing is pretty high
>>>functioning. They're at an awkward time, but it's really stretching the
>>>term to suggest that they're disfunctional because they insist that their
>>>kid finish high school OR ELSE.
>
>> But what *is* the or else? They aren't just letting him go at this
>> point and they have no leverage.
>
>I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The "or else" in the above
>paragraph was "or else move out of this house because we don't support
>adults." She then had to let him move out and spend the rest of the
>summer outside her influence. That WAS just letting him go.

But she is keeping up the pressure for him to return. And a summer is
not enough time for him to realize anything, imo, especially if he is
living with friends..

Btw, what do the parents of these friends think? Why should they
provide his room and board?

He has yet to experience the real consequences unless he is truly
paying his own way.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Wendy Marsden
August 6th 03, 03:11 AM
toto > wrote:

> Hopefully the older kids at least get an allowance and they can
> learn to budget using that if you make it appropriate and give
> them responsibility for some of their own expenses. For example,
> my ds got his lunch money and bus money for the week. He
> often saved the bus money by walking or biking to school and
> used it to buy baseball cards. My dd took the bus, but sometimes
> packed a brown bag lunch and saved her lunch money to spend
> on music or jewelry.

This is a really nice idea. I'd prefer that my 10 year old pack a lunch
from home, so maybe this is a subtle way to encourage it! :-)

By the way, my kids get $5/month for each grade they're in. The 4th
grader gets $20, the 7th grader gets $35. It's sufficient to save and/or
spend on things they want for themselves or to give as gifts. It's not
given for chores. It's given on the day of the month that their Daddy
gets paid. (He gets paid once a month and I effectively get paid once a
year - we're experts at cash flow budgeting in our house.)

> Consider this, not what you
> think may be true. If he is willing, ask him to get tested or to talk
> to a specialist about his academic problems.

I can do that next time I see him. He's a 17 year old kid who doesn't
hang out much with fuddy-duddy friends of his mother's, though, so it may
not come up very soon. :-)

By the way, I think it was you who asked what the parents of his friends
thought about this. I don't know - I don't have any access into that
scene. I'm not sure his mother knows, either.

Wendy

Chookie
August 6th 03, 02:54 PM
In article >,
Wendy Marsden > wrote:

> Throughout this thread people have made it clear that they are comfortable
> with having some requirements of their adult children who live at home -
> most have said they have to pay rent. Why not have the requirement that
> they have to be in school? To me this makes a WHOLE lot more sense: they
> can pay rent anywhere. Who else is going to allow them to waive the rent
> while they spend their work-days pursuing education?

I think the point *is* that you can pay rent anywhere. That is, they are NOT
being given special treatment -- they are being treated just like any other
adult. The young man has been given these options:

(a) Study (successfully) and contribute around the house and live here
rent-free; or
(b) Push off

I think most posters consider that (c) Pay rent and contribute around the
house, is a preferred option.

The reason is that he is not currently being offered a real choice. His
previous behaviour indicates that he has already rejected (a), so (b) is the
only alternative. It would be like my parents asking me to either commit to
playing in the Australian women's cricket team or push off. I don't like
cricket and have no skill at it, so I really don't *have* a choice, even
though it *looks* like one.

Now, why do I think (c) push off, is the best option? (You will remember I
thought it was a good idea for him to leave home in the first place.) I think
it would be better for the young man to pay rent to a non-relative. If he
can't find a job after Labour Day, or gets the sack for being unreliable, the
landlord will evict him. IME most parents will not boot out an unemployed
child, nor one that doesn't meet his tudy/rent commitments. If the young man
is unreliable, he needs to find out about the results of unreliability. If he
is reliable, he needs to find out that an unskilled wage doesn't leave you
much after the rent. This is a good thing to know! It might even prompt him
to return to study, and to apply himself when he gets there. OTOH he might
well find another path in life that he loves -- study doesn't automatically
mean good wages, nor does a lack of study necessarily condemn you to poverty.

The worst-case scenario is to end up like my friend's brother. He is in a
steady job, but his sister has had to set up a direct debit of board from his
account because he cannot be trusted to pay her otherwise. You see, he knows
he is important and that he must have expensive gadgets... even ahead of his
proper responsibilities, and well out of step with his income. If he were 17,
he would just be a young fool, like the subject of this thread... but he is 10
years past that stage and now is just a fool.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

dragonlady
August 10th 03, 07:25 AM
In article >,
toto > wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:20:56 GMT, Rosalie B.
> > wrote:
>
> >Is that on the GED? What about kids that are in the technical courses
> >and never take anything but general math? Is everyone required to
> >take algebra now? And geometry?
> >
> The requirements for graduation have changed so that Algebra I
> and Geometry are now required. The courses have been changed
> as well, to an extent so that there are courses in Algebra that take
> two years in some cases and geometry without proofs is offered
> for students who are not up to the traditional geometry classes.

Well, not here in California; the requirement is 2 years of math, and
many schools require all freshmen to take Algebra I -- however, kids are
able to meet the requirment by taking things like business math and
remedial arithmetic classes. I do know kids who got high school
diplomas without passing geometry -- though I'm not sure I know any who
never passed Algebra, I'm told it is possible.

>
> >In any case, it doesn't take 4 years to have SOME exposure. I had
> >most of Algebra 1 in 8th grade although it was an experimental class
> >when I did it. And even when I was teaching, most of the academic
> >kids had algebra in the 8th grade.
>
> Interesting.. When I went to high school, algebra was a 9th grade
> class.. When my son and dd took it, the brightest kids took it
> in 6th grade, the next took it in 7th and the next took it in 8th, but
> there were still kids who took it in 9th and there were still kids
> who could not pass it at that point. Geometry honors at my kids
> school was taken also by kids in all grades at the middle school,
> but they went to the high school to take it if they were not in high
> school already. There were a variety of kids in that school, of
> course, but remember that nowadays a larger percentage goes
> on to college than was the case when I was in school. Unfortunately,
> many of them are not really ready for college even though they have
> been forced into academic classes to graduate from high school.
>
> I don't know if the GED has changed to reflect the state requirements,
> though since I have not seen a test in a long time. I suppose I
> should look at the newer additions of the GED test booklets and
> see.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toto
August 10th 03, 05:30 PM
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:25:42 GMT, dragonlady
> wrote:

>> The requirements for graduation have changed so that Algebra I
>> and Geometry are now required. The courses have been changed
>> as well, to an extent so that there are courses in Algebra that take
>> two years in some cases and geometry without proofs is offered
>> for students who are not up to the traditional geometry classes.
>
>Well, not here in California; the requirement is 2 years of math, and
>many schools require all freshmen to take Algebra I -- however, kids are
>able to meet the requirment by taking things like business math and
>remedial arithmetic classes. I do know kids who got high school
>diplomas without passing geometry -- though I'm not sure I know any who
>never passed Algebra, I'm told it is possible.

The requirement in Illinois is being raised to three years and that
will include algebra II, I am told.

I think this is ridiculous myself, since not everyone is going to need
these courses, although *if* they are going to college, it used to be
required that they have at least Algebra I and geometry and that they
take College algebra even if they were not going to major in math
or science.

I do think that everyone needs a good grounding in mathematical
concepts today and that business math and arithmetic are not
enough to get by. Statistics and data analysis is probably more
needed than Algebra and geometry courses. But I am torn. For
most kids, formal proof is never taught anywhere in high school
except in geometry classes and it seems to me that logic ought to
be taught somewhere and formal proof (doesn't *have* to be in
mathematics, but that is the easiest place to do this).


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto
August 10th 03, 10:49 PM
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:59:30 +1000, Daye > wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:56:43 -0500, toto >
>wrote:
>
>>Well, that's nice, but it's anecdotal and not all teens can pass
>>without studying.
>
>Sure, it is anecdotal. However, everyone that I have ever known to
>take and pass the GED did not study.

And what about those who took it and didn't pass. Saying that those
you knew who passed didn't study says nothing about whether studying
would help those who had trouble.



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

H Schinske
August 11th 03, 04:28 AM
Dorothy ) wrote:

>Statistics and data analysis is probably more
>needed than Algebra and geometry courses.

The difficulty there is that the *math* behind a lot of statistics is actually
calculus. You can teach a statistics-and-water course earlier in the sequence,
but I don't know that kids will actually come out of it understanding a whole
lot more.

--Helen

Daye
August 11th 03, 07:45 PM
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:49:55 -0500, toto >
wrote:

>And what about those who took it and didn't pass. Saying that those
>you knew who passed didn't study says nothing about whether studying
>would help those who had trouble.

I have never, ever known anyone to fail the GED either.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

dragonlady
August 14th 03, 02:30 AM
In article >,
(H Schinske) wrote:

> Dorothy ) wrote:
>
> >Statistics and data analysis is probably more
> >needed than Algebra and geometry courses.
>
> The difficulty there is that the *math* behind a lot of statistics is actually
> calculus. You can teach a statistics-and-water course earlier in the sequence,
> but I don't know that kids will actually come out of it understanding a whole
> lot more.
>
> --Helen

That was certainly a problem I had; I took two stats classes
about 10 years after I had taken (and done badly in) calc. I did well,
but only because I was able to get some private tutoring in calculus.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Rosalie B.
August 14th 03, 03:04 AM
x-no-archive:yes dragonlady > wrote:

>In article >,
> (H Schinske) wrote:
>
>> Dorothy ) wrote:
>>
>> >Statistics and data analysis is probably more
>> >needed than Algebra and geometry courses.
>>
>> The difficulty there is that the *math* behind a lot of statistics is actually
>> calculus. You can teach a statistics-and-water course earlier in the sequence,
>> but I don't know that kids will actually come out of it understanding a whole
>> lot more.
>>
>> --Helen
>
>That was certainly a problem I had; I took two stats classes
> about 10 years after I had taken (and done badly in) calc. I did well,
>but only because I was able to get some private tutoring in calculus.
>
That may be, but when I was in school calculus was not required - not
even of a science major in college. And I've never had it. I've
taken pre-calculus and passed it, and then took the exam to go into
calculus and failed it. I have however, had a statistics course,
which I also passed without taking any calculus.

I have also worked at a job (industrial hygiene) and taken extensive
exams in subjects that require calculus or are supposed to require
calculus - the noise standard etc are based on some kind of advanced
math of that type. I passed the exams and got certified, and was able
to do the calculations (and figure out what calculations should be
done and were applicable) all without having any calculus at all.

All my girls have had calculus - not sure if my son has done that yet.
And of course dh is an engineer. But he didn't help me on any of the
exams.

I've never had physics either - on any level.




RosalieAnn Figge Beasley, C.I.H.
retired - formerly MOSHA Consultation

Rosalie B.
August 14th 03, 01:45 PM
x-no-archive:yes toto > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:04:33 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:
>
>>That may be, but when I was in school calculus was not required - not
>>even of a science major in college
>
>I don't imagine it was required of liberal arts majors, but anyone in
>science, math or engineering had to take it when I was in college and
>that was in the early 60s. Physics in particular cannot be done on
>the college level without calculus.

Well as I said - I've never had physics, or astronomy which was the
science course of choice for liberal arts people.

WHen I entered college (Oberlin) in 1955, if I had 4 years of hs math
I didn't have any required math courses in college. I was a zoology
major (I had a boyfriend who was a math person and he didn't consider
the biological sciences as 'real' science so maybe that's it.) In any
case - biology is still considered science AFAIK.

I had 4 years of hs math - alg 1, alg 2, geometry, and the fourth year
was trig and solid geometry. We didn't have calculus available in my
hs.

I did well at geometry, but I had a lot of trouble with algebra -
nearly flunking it, and I've had to work hard at doing it - I can do
it but it is hard work for me. Logic OTOH is fun.
>
>I cannot imagine a science major not taking calculus.
>
You don't have to imagine it. Just accept it. It happened. I was
there.

>But calculus isn't necessary for a lot of people, though an
>understanding of limits and inductive proof is something that
>students shoud have, imo. These are precalculus concepts
>though not calculus ones.
>
>And there are many areas of mathematics that don't
>really require much in the way of calculus for understanding
>them.

But I wasn't involved in areas of math that don't require calculus,
unless you include statistics and logarithmic scales as not requiring
much calculus.

grandma Rosalie

toto
August 14th 03, 04:35 PM
On 14 Aug 2003 05:29:47 -0700, Banty > wrote:

>The basics of integration and differentiation are very important concepts.
>
Most math professors would say these are skills not concepts.

The idea of a limit, the idea of a function (rigorously defined), the
idea of continuous and discrete functions, the idea that there is
a relationship between integration (which is really just a fancy way
of adding) and differentiation (which is algebraically determining
the limit of a ratio) - these are important. Doing the actual
calculations - plugging numbers into the formulas is not really
very important because we can use computers to do that.

In a sense the biggest hurdle students face in calculus is that the
notation is very different from anything they have seen prior to
calculus.

>Banty


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto
August 14th 03, 04:41 PM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:45:14 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:

>x-no-archive:yes toto > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:04:33 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:
>>
>>>That may be, but when I was in school calculus was not required - not
>>>even of a science major in college
>>
>>I don't imagine it was required of liberal arts majors, but anyone in
>>science, math or engineering had to take it when I was in college and
>>that was in the early 60s. Physics in particular cannot be done on
>>the college level without calculus.
>
>Well as I said - I've never had physics, or astronomy which was the
>science course of choice for liberal arts people.
>
>WHen I entered college (Oberlin) in 1955, if I had 4 years of hs math
>I didn't have any required math courses in college. I was a zoology
>major (I had a boyfriend who was a math person and he didn't consider
>the biological sciences as 'real' science so maybe that's it.) In any
>case - biology is still considered science AFAIK.
>
>I had 4 years of hs math - alg 1, alg 2, geometry, and the fourth year
>was trig and solid geometry. We didn't have calculus available in my
>hs.
>
>I did well at geometry, but I had a lot of trouble with algebra -
>nearly flunking it, and I've had to work hard at doing it - I can do
>it but it is hard work for me. Logic OTOH is fun.
>>
>>I cannot imagine a science major not taking calculus.
>>
>You don't have to imagine it. Just accept it. It happened. I was
>there.
>
>>But calculus isn't necessary for a lot of people, though an
>>understanding of limits and inductive proof is something that
>>students shoud have, imo. These are precalculus concepts
>>though not calculus ones.
>>
>>And there are many areas of mathematics that don't
>>really require much in the way of calculus for understanding
>>them.
>
>But I wasn't involved in areas of math that don't require calculus,
>unless you include statistics and logarithmic scales as not requiring
>much calculus.
>
>grandma Rosalie

You were in college earlier than I was. I do wonder about the
mathematical rigor in your high school classes.

For example, was your high school geometry more memorizing
proofs or did you have to construct your own? I know that mine
seemed geared to memorization and my children's were much
less so as they had to actually create more proofs of their own
and with more rigor.

Logarithms don't require calculus to understand them.
Statistics today uses quite a bit of calculus in terms of formulas,
but it's more plug-in plug-out than a theoretical basis. Often
engineers have more of that then theoretical math also.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Rosalie B.
August 14th 03, 08:37 PM
x-no-archive:yes
toto > wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:45:14 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:
>> toto > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:04:33 GMT, Rosalie B.
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That may be, but when I was in school calculus was not required - not
>>>>even of a science major in college
>>>
>>>I don't imagine it was required of liberal arts majors, but anyone in
>>>science, math or engineering had to take it when I was in college and
>>>that was in the early 60s. Physics in particular cannot be done on
>>>the college level without calculus.
>>
>>Well as I said - I've never had physics, or astronomy which was the
>>science course of choice for liberal arts people.
>>
>>WHen I entered college (Oberlin) in 1955, if I had 4 years of hs math
>>I didn't have any required math courses in college. I was a zoology
>>major (I had a boyfriend who was a math person and he didn't consider
>>the biological sciences as 'real' science so maybe that's it.) In any
>>case - biology is still considered science AFAIK.
>>
>>I had 4 years of hs math - alg 1, alg 2, geometry, and the fourth year
>>was trig and solid geometry. We didn't have calculus available in my
>>hs.
>>
>>I did well at geometry, but I had a lot of trouble with algebra -
>>nearly flunking it, and I've had to work hard at doing it - I can do
>>it but it is hard work for me. Logic OTOH is fun.
>>>
>>>I cannot imagine a science major not taking calculus.
>>>
>>You don't have to imagine it. Just accept it. It happened. I was
>>there.
>>
>>>But calculus isn't necessary for a lot of people, though an
>>>understanding of limits and inductive proof is something that
>>>students shoud have, imo. These are precalculus concepts
>>>though not calculus ones.
>>>
>>>And there are many areas of mathematics that don't
>>>really require much in the way of calculus for understanding
>>>them.
>>
>>But I wasn't involved in areas of math that don't require calculus,
>>unless you include statistics and logarithmic scales as not requiring
>>much calculus.
>
>You were in college earlier than I was. I do wonder about the

Yes that's absolutely true - I graduated in 1959

>mathematical rigor in your high school classes.
>
>For example, was your high school geometry more memorizing
>proofs or did you have to construct your own? I know that mine
>seemed geared to memorization and my children's were much
>less so as they had to actually create more proofs of their own
>and with more rigor.

I had a very good geometry teacher and as I recall, he would give us
something to prove and we had to apply the proofs we knew in order to
get the answer to the question. He wouldn't tell us how to do it -
that was the test. Is that constructing a proof?

It is a LONG time ago - as I had geometry in 1953-1954. My 8th grade
algebra teacher (the only good algebra teacher I had) made us derive
formulas for things like lift and drag, and inclined planes etc. I
guess I might have had a bit of physics in there too.
>
>Logarithms don't require calculus to understand them.
>Statistics today uses quite a bit of calculus in terms of formulas,
>but it's more plug-in plug-out than a theoretical basis. Often
>engineers have more of that then theoretical math also.

Yes, my mathematical boyfriend was pretty disparaging of physics as
being just 'applied math'. [ I dated dh before I met this particular
boyfriend, but dh moved to another school district before I met him.
Broke up with him in college and started to date dh again.]

My dd#3 was a math major, and dd#1 was not only a math major but has
her masters in math, and works in a math/computer field. dd#2 is an
engineer - like her daddy - EE. One of my granddaughters (dd of
dd#1) is currently an intern in civil engineering. Two BILs are
engineers, and one niece and one nephew are engineers so I'd be
surrounded - except that one niece is also an MD, one is a teacher,
two are writers, and one and dd#3 are professional horse trainers.

I must say I don't understand logarithms - I have to memorize the
formulas without really understanding them. So I have no way of
knowing whether this is a deficiency of mine or because I haven't had
calculus.

grandma Rosalie

H Schinske
August 14th 03, 11:17 PM
wrote:

>Yes, my mathematical boyfriend was pretty disparaging of physics as
>being just 'applied math'.

Let's see if I can remember the old saw (which I don't actually believe, but
which always cracks me up):

Biology is applied chemistry
Chemistry is applied physics
Physics is applied math
Math is applied logic
Logic is applied philosophy
Philosophy is applied religion
Religion is applied bull**** ...

--Helen

Iuil
August 14th 03, 11:22 PM
"H Schinske" wrote:
>
> >Yes, my mathematical boyfriend was pretty disparaging of physics as
> >being just 'applied math'.
>
> Let's see if I can remember the old saw (which I don't actually believe,
but
> which always cracks me up):
>
> Biology is applied chemistry
> Chemistry is applied physics
> Physics is applied math
> Math is applied logic
> Logic is applied philosophy
> Philosophy is applied religion
> Religion is applied bull**** ...

I like this - I must keep it. My saying is:

If it moves it's biology.
If it reacts it's chemistry.
Everything else is physics.

Jean

--
"And he said:
Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of
Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, and
though they are with you, yet they belong not to you." Khalil Gibran

Return address is unread. Replies to <firstnamelastname> @eircom.net.

Chookie
August 16th 03, 01:55 PM
In article >,
toto > wrote:

> >> You were in college earlier than I was. I do wonder about the
> >> mathematical rigor in your high school classes.
<snip discussion>

> Rigor can be introduced much earlier (in Algebra I).
>
> For example when the quadratic formula is introduced, were you simply
> given the formula to use or did you derive it? And how was that
> derivation done? Rigor involves using correct mathematical notation
> and deriving and proving things instead of just accepting them and
> plugging in numbers.

Remember, we don't have "Algebra I" here; we are taught a course called
Mathematics (with various levels) with IIRC 6-week units on geometry, trig,
stats, calculus etc, varied so we didn't get bored, but still saw and used the
connections between the different areas of maths. To my mind, for example,
calculus is just a specialist part of algebra.

I do not know the term "the quadratic formula" as if there was only one -- do
you mean ax^2+bx+c=0? Or its general solution for x? We derived pretty much
everything from first principles. I must say that if my Dad (who went through
the Soviet education system at a good time and later became an electronics
engineer) thought my mathematical education was good, then it probably was. I
didn't do the top strand; I did the next one down. The top strand got into
matrices and imaginary numbers.

I do remember that at the time I was learning calculus, so was everyone else
-- even in the simplest course, Maths in Society (known as Maths In Space or
Vegie Maths. A few years later they introduced an even more basic maths
course, which was immediately nicknamed Choko Maths -- Vegie Maths without the
flavour! I would guess Choko Maths doesn't cover calculus at all).

> >I wouldn't describe integration as a fancy way of adding; it's how
> >you obtain the area (and therefore volume) under a curve.
>
> That's the application. You are however, adding the smaller and
> smaller sections when you do the actual integration.

Ah, now I see what you're getting at. But the "fancy adding" isn't the
salient feature to me; it's what you use it for: volumes of solids in
rotation. Not that I can think of any practical use for this any more!

> >But I'm vey rusty -- haven't used calculus since school, whereas I
> >used trig just recently to work out how wide an awning would need
> >to be to keep the sun out of a room at my latitude.
>
> Using the formulas is fine, but what I think most college math
> professors are after is not the use and calculation (that's an
> engineering province and most of the calculations are now done
> by computers once the formulas are programmed), but the actual
> ability to figure out why the formulas work and to derive the ones
> you might need or develop new formulas that work.

Darned if i can remember *why* the formulas work -- I was just glad that I had
remembered corectly that sin(theta) was the ratio of opposite to hypotenuse,
so I could then solve for the adjacent using cos(theta)! Turns out that at my
latitude and whatever the room height was, I need an awning 6' wide -- a nice
width for an outdoor table.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

toto
August 16th 03, 04:25 PM
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:55:51 +1000, Chookie
> wrote:

>In article >,
> toto > wrote:
>
>> >> You were in college earlier than I was. I do wonder about the
>> >> mathematical rigor in your high school classes.
><snip discussion>
>
>> Rigor can be introduced much earlier (in Algebra I).
>>
>> For example when the quadratic formula is introduced, were you simply
>> given the formula to use or did you derive it? And how was that
>> derivation done? Rigor involves using correct mathematical notation
>> and deriving and proving things instead of just accepting them and
>> plugging in numbers.
>
>Remember, we don't have "Algebra I" here; we are taught a course called
>Mathematics (with various levels) with IIRC 6-week units on geometry, trig,
>stats, calculus etc, varied so we didn't get bored, but still saw and used the
>connections between the different areas of maths. To my mind, for example,
>calculus is just a specialist part of algebra.
>
>I do not know the term "the quadratic formula" as if there was only one -- do
>you mean ax^2+bx+c=0? Or its general solution for x? We derived pretty much
>everything from first principles. I must say that if my Dad (who went through
>the Soviet education system at a good time and later became an electronics
>engineer) thought my mathematical education was good, then it probably was. I
>didn't do the top strand; I did the next one down. The top strand got into
>matrices and imaginary numbers.
>
I do mean the general solution for x here.

And if you derived things then your mathematical education was
probably pretty decent.

Did you do proofs? Euclidean Geometry as a strand in one or more
of your courses? US schools make that a separate class, but more
schools are now teaching integrated courses that don't separate
algebra and geometry from each other.

Did you do any co-ordinate geometry? That integrates algebraic
formulas for distance between two points and area and volume
with graphing.

>I do remember that at the time I was learning calculus, so was everyone else
>-- even in the simplest course, Maths in Society (known as Maths In Space or
>Vegie Maths. A few years later they introduced an even more basic maths
>course, which was immediately nicknamed Choko Maths -- Vegie Maths without the
>flavour! I would guess Choko Maths doesn't cover calculus at all).
>
>> >I wouldn't describe integration as a fancy way of adding; it's how
>> >you obtain the area (and therefore volume) under a curve.
>>
>> That's the application. You are however, adding the smaller and
>> smaller sections when you do the actual integration.
>
>Ah, now I see what you're getting at. But the "fancy adding" isn't the
>salient feature to me; it's what you use it for: volumes of solids in
>rotation. Not that I can think of any practical use for this any more!
>
I agree that for most people it's the applications that are important,
but the *ideas* allow you to apply the concept to unfamiliar problems.

Fancy adding is the *how,* the specific manipulations used can
change some.

>> >But I'm vey rusty -- haven't used calculus since school, whereas I
>> >used trig just recently to work out how wide an awning would need
>> >to be to keep the sun out of a room at my latitude.
>>
>> Using the formulas is fine, but what I think most college math
>> professors are after is not the use and calculation (that's an
>> engineering province and most of the calculations are now done
>> by computers once the formulas are programmed), but the actual
>> ability to figure out why the formulas work and to derive the ones
>> you might need or develop new formulas that work.
>
>Darned if i can remember *why* the formulas work -- I was just glad that I had
>remembered corectly that sin(theta) was the ratio of opposite to hypotenuse,
>so I could then solve for the adjacent using cos(theta)! Turns out that at my
>latitude and whatever the room height was, I need an awning 6' wide -- a nice
>width for an outdoor table.

Glad you figured out what you needed. That is what mathematics is
useful for in real life.. It's just not the whole story and schools
need to teach more than the formulas. It sounds to me like your
school did do that.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits