I loved this article about Libraries... I can so relate to what Laura is talking about!
The State of Library Addiction
Posted on July 21, 2011 by Laura Weldon
http://lauragraceweldon.com/2011/07/21/the-state-of-library-addiction/
According to the United States of Shame chart, I live in the nerdiest state.
I can relate to the first part of Wikipedia’s definition of nerd.
“Nerd is a term that refers to a person who avidly pursues intellectual activities, technical or scientific endeavors, esoteric knowledge, or other obscure interests, rather than engaging in more social or conventional activities.”
I won’t get into the second part, having to do with being “awkward, shy and unattractive.”
I’ve always belonged to the Sisterhood of Obscure Interests. Membership naturally seems to include awkward, shy, and unattractive moments (or decades). But it makes life more interesting. For example, when I accidentally bashed my head on a shelf at the library today I “saw stars” and promptly ruminated on what visual cortex misfire might have caused those stars.
Already jazzed, I checked out what allegedly makes Ohioans nerdier than everyone else. Turns out, we have more library visits per capita library than any other state. Twice as many as our next door neighbor, Pennsylvania.
Huzzah!
I’ll admit, the stacks of books my family brings home may be pushing up the state average. But we’re also fortunate to be surrounded by award-winning library systems. Who wouldn’t visit?
For those of you who don’t bliss out over libraries, or worse, only vaguely remember libraries as having a distinctive smell, here are a few of my reasons for being a library addict.
1. Magic water.
As a small child I was convinced there was something magical about the drinking fountain water at our local library. It tasted better than water anywhere else. I wondered if it had to do with the enviable proximity to all those books.
When I had kids I still rhapsodized about the water at libraries. And they’ve always been able to taste the difference. Even though I realize there’s no factual basis for this belief, library water still seems more deeply refreshing than ordinary water. Try it and see for yourself.
2. Awe.
www.nypl.org
A much more vital magic is evident in libraries around the world.
It has to do with a sense of history, of freely shared knowledge, and awe-inspiring architecture. When traveling I make sure to hang out in libraries. Most recently I found time to soak up the atmosphere of one of NYC’s awesome libraries.
3. Librarians.
librarianavengers.org
These folks are amazing. As Erica Firment writes on Librarian Avengers,
“People become librarians because they know too much. Their knowledge extends beyond mere categories. They cannot be confined to disciplines. Librarians are all-knowing and all-seeing. They bring order to chaos. They bring wisdom and culture to the masses. They preserve every aspect of human knowledge. Librarians rule. And they will kick the crap out of anyone who says otherwise.”
Librarian stereotypes aren’t relevant or cute. Don’t believe me? Check out The Bellydancing Librarian, The Steampunk Librarian, The Modified Librarian, and Miss Information. Still think of them as chronic shsser’s? Then read Your Librarian Hates You.
4. Library materials are free!
Our taxes pay for them whether you use them or not. Only suckers don’t get in there to scoop up the books, DVD’s, downloads, recorded books, electronic reader books, programs, classes, and more. My kids and I have strolled out after a library visit with well over 100 items checked out on a card or two.
Today’s libraries offer much more than well worn books and a chaotic Story Hour. Click over to your library’s website. You’ll find an amazing array of offerings well beyond the newest bestsellers. There are probably programs to get you started in fencing or felting or fraternizing with fellow foodies, just this week alone.
5. Ordering.
OMG, I love ordering materials. Our library systems are linked, so holdings can be sent from libraries in quite a few counties right to our own little branch. I read a review of a book before it’s released, then go to the library site and pre-order it. I order special book group offerings for our teen book group (up to 20 of the same book) that come organized by some saintly librarian with supplemental materials. I order obscure specialty books that were published back in the 1920’s and earlier.
We’ve homeschooled on the cheap thanks to our library system and the wonders of ordering materials. No way could I afford to expose my kids to the depth of information and range of experiences they’ve gained via libraries.
6. Online renewal.
I don’t know about your library system, but mine permits renewals up to five times. That gives me several months to adore most materials. Those months are necessary. I use books in my work, take them with me lest I have a dull moment, and leave them around for my kids to pick up when their eyeballs are unoccupied.
Sometimes I find books so precious that when they are finally and irrevocably due I end up buying a copy. But let me point out, I only buy books after proving their worth to myself. No regrettable book purchases here. Yay savings.
7. Library privileges.
Mezzentino
I’ve been in a steady human relationship for a loooong time, but I’m a non-monogamous library user. Judging by the number of library cards in my name, I’m a pushover for the sweet allure of any library’s New Acquisitions section.
It’s hard to unearn library privileges. Late fees are usually minimal and in many systems there are no late fees for seniors, teachers, and homeschoolers. Even when my account is labeled “delinquent” (often) I’m still able to check out and reserve materials. I don’t mind a few dollars here and there to make up for my late return crimes. Totally worth it.
Unlike most human relationships, my library is always buying me something new, forgiving me when I atone, and consistently planning unexpected ways to lure me.
8. Research databases.
Porträt Dantes
Library systems subscribe to pricey online database services that none of us could afford on our own. I access most of them from my home computer, simply logging in with my library card number. These databases include genealogy, academic research, news archives, digital images, health, and much more.
I relied almost entirely on the resources of my award-winning Medina County Library for the research necessary to write my book.
9. That smell.
Libraries no longer smell like someone’s musty basement. The odor is something entirely different. I’ll tell you what it reminds me of, right after I tell you about how much I appreciate Russian language library materials.
For five summers we hosted a little girl from Belarus through the Children of Chernobyl project. And every summer before she arrived I called the librarian in charge of the foreign language collection at the Cleveland Public Library. We talked over Tatiana’s age and interests, then every few weeks through her three month stay this librarian sent to our rural library branch a wonderful selection of Russian materials. Harry Potter, children’smagazines, recorded children’s books, popular music, and much more. When my kids curled up with books or went to bed listening to CD’s, Tanya was able to do so as well. I hoped it eased the hunger she must have felt to hear her own language. Beyond that, it built connections between us almost immediately.
The first day she arrived, exhausted from long flights and weak from some medical problems, there was no way we could really communicate. It became obvious that our efforts to learn Russian had been laughable and as an eight-year-old her grasp of English was limited to “yes” and “thank you.” Then I remembered those blessed library materials. In a few minutes all of us were dancing to the Russian version of “Hokey Pokey” and laughing before collapsing in a heap on the couch together to giggle as we paged through a Russian/English picture book, challenging each other to pronounce the words. That stack of Russian library materials smelled, more than anything, like home. To me, every library smells like my place. Bet libraries smell like your place too.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Case Against Competition By Alfie Kohn - WORKING MOTHER - September 1987
When it comes to competition, we Americans typically recognize only two legitimate positions: enthusiastic support and qualified support.
The first view holds that the more we immerse our children (and ourselves) in rivalry, the better. Competition builds character and produces excellence. The second stance admits that our society has gotten carried away with the need to be Number One, that we push our kids too hard and too fast to become winners -- but insists that competition can be healthy and fun if we keep it in perspective.
I used to be in the second camp. But after investigating the topic for several years, looking at research from psychology, sociology, biology, education, and other fields, I'm now convinced that neither position is correct. Competition is bad news all right, but it's not just that we overdo it or misapply it. The trouble lies with competition itself. The best amount of competition for our children is none at all, and the very phrase "healthy competition" is actually a contradiction in terms.
That may sound extreme if not downright un-American. But some things aren't just bad because they're done to excess; some things are inherently destructive. Competition, which simply means that one person can succeed only if others fail, is one of those things. It's always unnecessary and inappropriate at school, at play, and at home.
Think for a moment about the goals you have for your children. Chances are you want them to develop healthy self-esteem, to accept themselves as basically good people. You want them to become successful, to achieve the excellence of which they're capable. You want them to have loving and supportive relationships. And you want them to enjoy themselves.
These are fine goals. But competition not only isn't necessary for reaching them -- it actually undermines them.
Competition is to self-esteem as sugar is to teeth. Most people lose in most competitive encounters, and it's obvious why that causes self-doubt. But even winning doesn't build character; it just lets a child gloat temporarily. Studies have shown that feelings of self-worth become dependent on external sources of evaluation as a result of competition: Your value is defined by what you've done. Worse -- you're a good person in proportion to the number of people you've beaten.
In a competitive culture, a child is told that it isn't enough to be good -- he must triumph over others. Success comes to be defined as victory, even though these are really two very different things. Even when the child manages to win, the whole affair, psychologically speaking, becomes a vicious circle: The more he competes, the more he needs to compete to feel good about himself.
When I made this point on a talk show on national television, my objections were waved aside by the parents of a seven-year-old tennis champion named Kyle, who appeared on the program with me. Kyle had been used to winning ever since a tennis racket was put in his hands at the age of two. But at the very end of the show, someone in the audience asked him how he felt when he lost. Kyle lowered his head and in a small voice replied, "Ashamed."
This is not to say that children shouldn't learn discipline and tenacity, that they shouldn't be encouraged to succeed or even have a nodding acquaintance with failure. But none of these requires winning and losing -- that is, having to beat other children and worry about being beaten. When classrooms and playing fields are based on cooperation rather than competition, children feel better about themselves. They work with others instead of against them, and their self-esteem doesn't depend on winning a spelling bee or a Little League game.
Children succeed in spite of competition, not because of it. Most of us were raised to believe that we do our best work when we're in a race -- that without competition we would all become fat, lazy, and mediocre. It's a belief that our society takes on faith. It's also false.
There is good evidence that productivity in the workplace suffers as a result of competition. The research is even more compelling in classroom settings. David Johnson, a professor of social psychology at the University of Minnesota, and his colleagues reviewed all the studies they could find on the subject from 1924 to 1980. Sixty-five of the studies found that children learn better when they work cooperatively as opposed to competitively, eight found the reverse, and 36 found no significant difference. The more complex the learning task, the worse children in a competitive environment fared.
Brandeis University psychologist Teresa Amabile was more interested in creativity. In a study, she asked children to make "silly collages." Some competed for prizes and some didn't. Seven artists then independently rated the kids' work. It turned out that those who were trying to win produced collages that were much less creative -- less spontaneous, complex and varied -- than the others.
One after another, researchers across the country have concluded that children do not learn better when education is transformed into a competitive struggle. Why? First, competition often makes kids anxious and that interferes with concentration. Second, competition doesn't permit them to share their talents and resources as cooperation does, so they can't learn from one another. Finally, trying to be Number One distracts them from what they're supposed to be learning. It may seem paradoxical, but when a student concentrates on the reward (an A or a gold star or a trophy), she becomes less interested in what she's doing. The result: Performance declines.
Just because forcing children to try to outdo one another is counterproductive doesn't mean they can't keep track of how they're doing. There's no problem with comparing their achievements to an objective standard (how fast they ran, how many questions they got right) or to how they did yesterday or last year. But if we value our children's intellectual development, we need to realize that turning learning into a race simply doesn't work.
Competition is a recipe for hostility. By definition, not everyone can win a contest. If one child wins, another cannot. This means that each child comes to regard others as obstacles to his or her own success. Forget fractions or home runs; this is the real lesson our children learn in a competitive environment.
Competition leads children to envy winners, to dismiss losers (there's no nastier epithet in our language than "Loser!"), and to be suspicious of just about everyone. Competition makes it difficult to regard others as potential friends or collaborators; even if you're not my rival today, you could be tomorrow.
This is not to say that competitors will always detest each other. But trying to outdo someone is not conducive to trust -- indeed, it would be irrational to trust someone who gains from your failure. At best, competition leads one to look at others through narrowed eyes; at worst, it invites outright aggression. Existing relationships are strained to the breaking point, while new friendships are often nipped in the bud.
Again, the research -- which I review in my book No Contest: The Case Against Competition -- helps to explain the destructive effect of win/lose arrangements. When children compete, they are less able to take the perspective of others -- that is, to see the world from someone else's point of view. One study demonstrated conclusively that competitive children were less empathetic than others; another study showed that competitive children were less generous.
Cooperation, on the other hand, is marvelously successful at helping children to communicate effectively, to trust in others and to accept those who are different from themselves. Competition interferes with these goals and often results in outright antisocial behavior. The choice is ours: We can blame the individual children who cheat, turn violent, or withdraw, or we can face the fact that competition itself is responsible for such ugliness.
Studies also show, incidentally, that competition among groups isn't any better than competition among individuals. Kids don't have to work against a common enemy in order to know the joys of camaraderie or to experience success. Real cooperation doesn't require triumphing over another group.
Having fun doesn't mean turning playing fields into battlefields. It's remarkable, when you stop to think about it, that the way we teach our kids to have a good time is to play highly structured games in which one individual or team must defeat another.
Consider one of the first games our children learn to play: musical chairs. Take away one chair and one child in each round until one smug winner is seated and everyone else has been excluded from play. You know that sour birthday party scene; the needle is lifted from the record and someone else is transformed into a loser, forced to sit out the rest of the game with the other unhappy kids on the side. That's how children learn to have fun in America.
Terry Orlick, a Canadian expert on games, suggests changing the goal of musical chairs so children are asked to fit on a diminishing number of seats. At the end, seven or eight giggling, happy kids are trying to squish on a single chair. Everyone has fun and there are no winners or losers.
What's true of musical chairs is true of all recreation; with a little ingenuity, we can devise games in which the obstacle is something intrinsic to the task itself rather than another person or team.
In fact, not one of the benefits attributed to sports or other competitive games actually requires competition. Children can get plenty of exercise without struggling against each other. Teamwork? Cooperative games allow everyone to work together, without creating enemies. Improving skills and setting challenges? Again, an objective standard or one's own earlier performance will do.
When Orlick taught a group of children noncompetitive games, two thirds of the boys and all of the girls preferred them to games that require opponents. If our culture's idea of a good time is competition, it may just be because we haven't tried the alternative.
How can parents raise a noncompetitive child in a competitive world? Competition is destructive to children's self-esteem, it interferes with learning, sabotages relationships, and isn't necessary to have a good time. But how do you raise a child in a culture that hasn't yet caught on to all this?
There are no easy answers here. But there is one clearly unsatisfactory answer: Make your son or daughter competitive in order to fit into the "real world." That isn't desirable for the child -- for all the reasons given here -- and it perpetuates the poison of competition in another generation.
Children can be taught about competition, prepared for the destructive forces they'll encounter, without being groomed to take part in it uncritically. They can be exposed to the case against competition just as they are taught the harms of drug abuse or reckless driving.
You will have to decide how much compromise is appropriate so your child isn't left out or ridiculed in a competitive society. But at least you can make your decision based on knowledge about competition's destructiveness. You can work with other parents and with your child's teachers and coaches to help change the structures that set children against one another. Or you may want to look into cooperative schools and summer camps, which are beginning to catch on around the country.
As for reducing rivalry and competitive attitudes in the home:
Avoid comparing a child's performance to that of a sibling, a classmate, or yourself as a child.
Don't use contests ("Who can dry the dishes fastest?") around the house. Watch your use of language ("Who's the best little girl in the whole wide world?") that reinforces competitive attitudes.
Never make your love or acceptance conditional on a child's performance. It's not enough to say, "As long as you did your best, honey" if the child learns that Mommy's attitude about her is quite different when she has triumphed over her peers.
Be aware of your power as a model. If you need to beat others, your child will learn that from you regardless of what you say. The lesson will be even stronger if you use your child to provide you with vicarious victories.
Raising healthy, happy, productive children goes hand in hand with creating a better society. The first step to achieving both is recognizing that our belief in the value of competition is built on myths. There are better ways for our children -- and for us -- to work and play and live.
Copyright © 1987 by Alfie Kohn. This article may be downloaded, reproduced, and distributed without permission as long as each copy includes this notice along with citation information (i.e., name of the periodical in which it originally appeared, date of publication, and author's name).
The first view holds that the more we immerse our children (and ourselves) in rivalry, the better. Competition builds character and produces excellence. The second stance admits that our society has gotten carried away with the need to be Number One, that we push our kids too hard and too fast to become winners -- but insists that competition can be healthy and fun if we keep it in perspective.
I used to be in the second camp. But after investigating the topic for several years, looking at research from psychology, sociology, biology, education, and other fields, I'm now convinced that neither position is correct. Competition is bad news all right, but it's not just that we overdo it or misapply it. The trouble lies with competition itself. The best amount of competition for our children is none at all, and the very phrase "healthy competition" is actually a contradiction in terms.
That may sound extreme if not downright un-American. But some things aren't just bad because they're done to excess; some things are inherently destructive. Competition, which simply means that one person can succeed only if others fail, is one of those things. It's always unnecessary and inappropriate at school, at play, and at home.
Think for a moment about the goals you have for your children. Chances are you want them to develop healthy self-esteem, to accept themselves as basically good people. You want them to become successful, to achieve the excellence of which they're capable. You want them to have loving and supportive relationships. And you want them to enjoy themselves.
These are fine goals. But competition not only isn't necessary for reaching them -- it actually undermines them.
Competition is to self-esteem as sugar is to teeth. Most people lose in most competitive encounters, and it's obvious why that causes self-doubt. But even winning doesn't build character; it just lets a child gloat temporarily. Studies have shown that feelings of self-worth become dependent on external sources of evaluation as a result of competition: Your value is defined by what you've done. Worse -- you're a good person in proportion to the number of people you've beaten.
In a competitive culture, a child is told that it isn't enough to be good -- he must triumph over others. Success comes to be defined as victory, even though these are really two very different things. Even when the child manages to win, the whole affair, psychologically speaking, becomes a vicious circle: The more he competes, the more he needs to compete to feel good about himself.
When I made this point on a talk show on national television, my objections were waved aside by the parents of a seven-year-old tennis champion named Kyle, who appeared on the program with me. Kyle had been used to winning ever since a tennis racket was put in his hands at the age of two. But at the very end of the show, someone in the audience asked him how he felt when he lost. Kyle lowered his head and in a small voice replied, "Ashamed."
This is not to say that children shouldn't learn discipline and tenacity, that they shouldn't be encouraged to succeed or even have a nodding acquaintance with failure. But none of these requires winning and losing -- that is, having to beat other children and worry about being beaten. When classrooms and playing fields are based on cooperation rather than competition, children feel better about themselves. They work with others instead of against them, and their self-esteem doesn't depend on winning a spelling bee or a Little League game.
Children succeed in spite of competition, not because of it. Most of us were raised to believe that we do our best work when we're in a race -- that without competition we would all become fat, lazy, and mediocre. It's a belief that our society takes on faith. It's also false.
There is good evidence that productivity in the workplace suffers as a result of competition. The research is even more compelling in classroom settings. David Johnson, a professor of social psychology at the University of Minnesota, and his colleagues reviewed all the studies they could find on the subject from 1924 to 1980. Sixty-five of the studies found that children learn better when they work cooperatively as opposed to competitively, eight found the reverse, and 36 found no significant difference. The more complex the learning task, the worse children in a competitive environment fared.
Brandeis University psychologist Teresa Amabile was more interested in creativity. In a study, she asked children to make "silly collages." Some competed for prizes and some didn't. Seven artists then independently rated the kids' work. It turned out that those who were trying to win produced collages that were much less creative -- less spontaneous, complex and varied -- than the others.
One after another, researchers across the country have concluded that children do not learn better when education is transformed into a competitive struggle. Why? First, competition often makes kids anxious and that interferes with concentration. Second, competition doesn't permit them to share their talents and resources as cooperation does, so they can't learn from one another. Finally, trying to be Number One distracts them from what they're supposed to be learning. It may seem paradoxical, but when a student concentrates on the reward (an A or a gold star or a trophy), she becomes less interested in what she's doing. The result: Performance declines.
Just because forcing children to try to outdo one another is counterproductive doesn't mean they can't keep track of how they're doing. There's no problem with comparing their achievements to an objective standard (how fast they ran, how many questions they got right) or to how they did yesterday or last year. But if we value our children's intellectual development, we need to realize that turning learning into a race simply doesn't work.
Competition is a recipe for hostility. By definition, not everyone can win a contest. If one child wins, another cannot. This means that each child comes to regard others as obstacles to his or her own success. Forget fractions or home runs; this is the real lesson our children learn in a competitive environment.
Competition leads children to envy winners, to dismiss losers (there's no nastier epithet in our language than "Loser!"), and to be suspicious of just about everyone. Competition makes it difficult to regard others as potential friends or collaborators; even if you're not my rival today, you could be tomorrow.
This is not to say that competitors will always detest each other. But trying to outdo someone is not conducive to trust -- indeed, it would be irrational to trust someone who gains from your failure. At best, competition leads one to look at others through narrowed eyes; at worst, it invites outright aggression. Existing relationships are strained to the breaking point, while new friendships are often nipped in the bud.
Again, the research -- which I review in my book No Contest: The Case Against Competition -- helps to explain the destructive effect of win/lose arrangements. When children compete, they are less able to take the perspective of others -- that is, to see the world from someone else's point of view. One study demonstrated conclusively that competitive children were less empathetic than others; another study showed that competitive children were less generous.
Cooperation, on the other hand, is marvelously successful at helping children to communicate effectively, to trust in others and to accept those who are different from themselves. Competition interferes with these goals and often results in outright antisocial behavior. The choice is ours: We can blame the individual children who cheat, turn violent, or withdraw, or we can face the fact that competition itself is responsible for such ugliness.
Studies also show, incidentally, that competition among groups isn't any better than competition among individuals. Kids don't have to work against a common enemy in order to know the joys of camaraderie or to experience success. Real cooperation doesn't require triumphing over another group.
Having fun doesn't mean turning playing fields into battlefields. It's remarkable, when you stop to think about it, that the way we teach our kids to have a good time is to play highly structured games in which one individual or team must defeat another.
Consider one of the first games our children learn to play: musical chairs. Take away one chair and one child in each round until one smug winner is seated and everyone else has been excluded from play. You know that sour birthday party scene; the needle is lifted from the record and someone else is transformed into a loser, forced to sit out the rest of the game with the other unhappy kids on the side. That's how children learn to have fun in America.
Terry Orlick, a Canadian expert on games, suggests changing the goal of musical chairs so children are asked to fit on a diminishing number of seats. At the end, seven or eight giggling, happy kids are trying to squish on a single chair. Everyone has fun and there are no winners or losers.
What's true of musical chairs is true of all recreation; with a little ingenuity, we can devise games in which the obstacle is something intrinsic to the task itself rather than another person or team.
In fact, not one of the benefits attributed to sports or other competitive games actually requires competition. Children can get plenty of exercise without struggling against each other. Teamwork? Cooperative games allow everyone to work together, without creating enemies. Improving skills and setting challenges? Again, an objective standard or one's own earlier performance will do.
When Orlick taught a group of children noncompetitive games, two thirds of the boys and all of the girls preferred them to games that require opponents. If our culture's idea of a good time is competition, it may just be because we haven't tried the alternative.
How can parents raise a noncompetitive child in a competitive world? Competition is destructive to children's self-esteem, it interferes with learning, sabotages relationships, and isn't necessary to have a good time. But how do you raise a child in a culture that hasn't yet caught on to all this?
There are no easy answers here. But there is one clearly unsatisfactory answer: Make your son or daughter competitive in order to fit into the "real world." That isn't desirable for the child -- for all the reasons given here -- and it perpetuates the poison of competition in another generation.
Children can be taught about competition, prepared for the destructive forces they'll encounter, without being groomed to take part in it uncritically. They can be exposed to the case against competition just as they are taught the harms of drug abuse or reckless driving.
You will have to decide how much compromise is appropriate so your child isn't left out or ridiculed in a competitive society. But at least you can make your decision based on knowledge about competition's destructiveness. You can work with other parents and with your child's teachers and coaches to help change the structures that set children against one another. Or you may want to look into cooperative schools and summer camps, which are beginning to catch on around the country.
As for reducing rivalry and competitive attitudes in the home:
Avoid comparing a child's performance to that of a sibling, a classmate, or yourself as a child.
Don't use contests ("Who can dry the dishes fastest?") around the house. Watch your use of language ("Who's the best little girl in the whole wide world?") that reinforces competitive attitudes.
Never make your love or acceptance conditional on a child's performance. It's not enough to say, "As long as you did your best, honey" if the child learns that Mommy's attitude about her is quite different when she has triumphed over her peers.
Be aware of your power as a model. If you need to beat others, your child will learn that from you regardless of what you say. The lesson will be even stronger if you use your child to provide you with vicarious victories.
Raising healthy, happy, productive children goes hand in hand with creating a better society. The first step to achieving both is recognizing that our belief in the value of competition is built on myths. There are better ways for our children -- and for us -- to work and play and live.
Copyright © 1987 by Alfie Kohn. This article may be downloaded, reproduced, and distributed without permission as long as each copy includes this notice along with citation information (i.e., name of the periodical in which it originally appeared, date of publication, and author's name).
Monday, April 4, 2011
Grown Unschoolers
These stories and interviews about grown unschoolers are so inspiring! http://radiofreeschool.blogspot.com/search/label/grown%20unschoolers It is beautiful to see these young people consciously expanding into their glorious, full selves! I wish I could have unschooled!
Bandana Waves II
Our results with the bandana waves were not as dramatic as the ones that Elizabeth demonstrated on her blog. We only used 2 bandanas, and this was not adequate for my daughter's thick hair. We tried again with 3 bandanas, and had better results, but still not the awesome big waves we craved. We will try again with 4 bandanas, and will get pictures of that! Rag curling is AMAZING though! I have been playing with this, and I recommend using rags to get soft, chemical-free, curly hair! It really lasts!
Wonderful Series on Unschooling
This series of articles by Beatrice Ekoko was written for CBC viewpoint analysis about home based learning and unschooling: http://radiofreeschool.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Bandana Waves
I have just discovered Elizabeth's blog: Rapunzel's Resource, and an amazing resource it is too! Being of longish hair, and having a daughter who adores her long hair, we have been investigating hair styles for my sister's upcoming wedding in New York city. Rapunzel's Resource is full of wonderful, non-heat activated hairstyles. One page from her site suggests creating amazing waves using bandanas. So my daughter is sleeping with bandanas in her hair tonight, and tomorrow we will see what happens. If this is a good thing, then we may have found our resource for her wedding hair style. Here is the link for the bandana waves page: http://rapunzelsresource.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/bandana-waves/ We will report in tomorrow!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Getting set-up on Etsy
Back in 2006, a friend urged me to get an Etsy account. I had a lot of fun setting it up, but there was no movement of my work. Of course, Etsy was still young then. So I decided to pull out. Fastforward 5 years and I have decided that I would like to set up an Etsy store-front.
Imagine my delight when upon enquiring, I was told that I could have my first profile re-activated! So I am in study of Etsy and it's ways. There is a lot of fabulous info on what you need to know and do to be successful there. It is exciting to see how far Etsy has come in the time since I was initially involved, and I am looking forward to being part of that dynamic community.
I will share my profile there as soon as I have it all up and running! I will also share any good ideas/hints/tips that I learn along the way!
Imagine my delight when upon enquiring, I was told that I could have my first profile re-activated! So I am in study of Etsy and it's ways. There is a lot of fabulous info on what you need to know and do to be successful there. It is exciting to see how far Etsy has come in the time since I was initially involved, and I am looking forward to being part of that dynamic community.
I will share my profile there as soon as I have it all up and running! I will also share any good ideas/hints/tips that I learn along the way!
Leather Working supplies in Vancouver area
A friend recently showed me her son's latest hobby: leather working.
For Christmas she had bought him an awl (at MEC of all places!!) and a large piece of tanned leather. It was by far his favourite Christmas present, and he has been busily making wonderful things since!
It got me to thinking about leather-working, and wondering where in the world you could get those kinds of supplies. Here is what I discovered:
In North Vancouver, there is a company called: Lonsdale Leather Warehouse. They don't seem to have a website, but here is what the Canpages profile says about them:
Profile: We have the largest selection of Leathers Hides, Belt Buckles, Handbag Hardware, Fasteners, Rivets, Snaps, grommets, Leather working Tools, Leather Dyes, Leather cleaning and conditioners, Lacings in Kangaroo Suede Calf Latigo Deer. Regular Leathers. Cow, Pig, Goat, Lamb, Tooling Veg, Latigo, Shearling, Waterproof, Exotic Leathers Hides. Crocco's, Stingray, Ostrich, Kangaroo, Deer, Elk, Buffalo, Industries we service. Belt & Handbag, Garment, Motorcycle, Industrial, Shoe, Ortho & Prosthetic, Craft, Film, Furniture Upholstery, Designer,
Lonsdale Leather Warehouse
Phone : (604) 873-6556
Fax (604) 873-6500
Address : 21 5th Ave E, Vancouver, BC V5T1G7
The other promising option appears to be a larger retail chain throughout Canada and the US called Tandy: http://www.tandyleatherfactory.com/ Their site has lots of info. Unfortunately, the Vancouver area location is in Surrey, which is a little far for me to go.
For Christmas she had bought him an awl (at MEC of all places!!) and a large piece of tanned leather. It was by far his favourite Christmas present, and he has been busily making wonderful things since!
It got me to thinking about leather-working, and wondering where in the world you could get those kinds of supplies. Here is what I discovered:
In North Vancouver, there is a company called: Lonsdale Leather Warehouse. They don't seem to have a website, but here is what the Canpages profile says about them:
Profile: We have the largest selection of Leathers Hides, Belt Buckles, Handbag Hardware, Fasteners, Rivets, Snaps, grommets, Leather working Tools, Leather Dyes, Leather cleaning and conditioners, Lacings in Kangaroo Suede Calf Latigo Deer. Regular Leathers. Cow, Pig, Goat, Lamb, Tooling Veg, Latigo, Shearling, Waterproof, Exotic Leathers Hides. Crocco's, Stingray, Ostrich, Kangaroo, Deer, Elk, Buffalo, Industries we service. Belt & Handbag, Garment, Motorcycle, Industrial, Shoe, Ortho & Prosthetic, Craft, Film, Furniture Upholstery, Designer,
Lonsdale Leather Warehouse
Phone : (604) 873-6556
Fax (604) 873-6500
Address : 21 5th Ave E, Vancouver, BC V5T1G7
The other promising option appears to be a larger retail chain throughout Canada and the US called Tandy: http://www.tandyleatherfactory.com/ Their site has lots of info. Unfortunately, the Vancouver area location is in Surrey, which is a little far for me to go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)