Page Four
SPORTS
An article by Mark Sarner in the Winnipeg Tribune, about the physical un-fitness of Canadian children (probably very like U.S. children in that respect), said, Children are certainly not as active as they used to be. …Increased organization and supervision of sports such as hockey have resulted in players spending much more time on the sidelines than they did when games were spontaneous and unstructured.
Well, they never were unstructured. The difference is that they were structured by children, not adults. The further difference is that when children structure a game, they want to get the most activity for everyone, not just imitate an adult game. If some kind of rule in a truly child’s game stops the action, someone will say after a while, Aw, this is no fun, and they will change the rule. The adults who run children’s sports rarely ever think of this.
I seldom see Little League baseball. When I do, what strikes me most of all is not the famous pressure form parents, but that so little baseball is being played. Most of the time, the pitcher is the biggest and strongest kid on the team, and blazes the ball past most of the little kids on the other team. There is very little hitting, base running, or fielding–so kids don’t learn how to do them. If children were running their own sports, those big, strong, precocious kids would be out playing with bigger and older kids, where they could get some good competition, and the little kids would be facing pitchers their own size, and there would be lots of action.
In another Peewee League game, the pitchers were so little that they couldn’t get the ball over the plate. Some fool adult was calling balls and strikes, and most batters walked. A pitcher might walk seven, eight, ten batters in a row, while kids slowly walked around the bases and some other solemn adult kept score. Sensible kids running their own game would tell the pitcher to get up close enough to get the ball over, and would tell the batters to stay up there till they struck out or hit something. Bases on balls make sense for adult baseball, but not for little kids–no kids playing ball for fun would ever think up such a rule.
The best remark I ever heard about Little League was made by former Yankee catcher Yogi Berra. He went right to the heart of the matter, said that when he was a kid he used to count a day lost when he didn’t get in about 150 at bats, but that he had seen Little League games lasting for hours in which kids only got up to bat three or four times–and then, like as not, walked or struck out.
One year, when I was teaching at the Colorado Rocky Mountain School, still very small and informal, we had about half an hour between lunch and the first afternoon class. In the spring a great game evolved to fill up this half hour. Boys and girls would rush out to a little odd-shaped pasture with a small irrigation ditch running right thru it. Not having enough players to make teams, we played four-a-cat. In strict four-a-cat, four people bat in rotation, the other players are in the field. The batters hit and run the bases just as in a regular ball game. A batter stays on the batting team until s/he is put out. If s/he hits a fly ball which is caught, the fielder who caught the fly comes in and takes the batter’s place. If the batter strikes out or grounds out, s/he goes out to left field, and the fielding team rotates positions–pitcher goes to the end of the batting rotation, former first base becomes pitcher, second base becomes first base, and so on.
One trouble with this game was that the best batters were almost never put out, so most players didn’t get a chance to hit. Also, the teen-age pitchers (who had lost a lot of their children’s sense about games) were trying to strike out everyone, so the batters had to stand around for a long time waiting for a good pitch to hit. The first problem we solved with a rule–after three hits a batter had to go out into left field, just as if s/he had struck out or grounded out, the fielders rotated their positions, and the former pitcher would join the batters. The fielders naturally kept close track of the batters, and when a batter made a third hit, a great cry of Rotate! would go up.
The second problem I solved by making myself the permanent pitcher. What I was able to do, and did, was make every pitch easy to hit. One day, which I still fondly and proudly remember, batters hit–hard–fourteen consecutive pitches. Action and excitement for everyone! The sluggers would blast triples and home runs till their three hits were used up. The weak hitters got at least one turn at bat in each full rotation–in a half-hour game everyone would bat at least two or three times. And everyone got to play all the positions. No one kept score–there was no way to–though the sluggers probably remembered their home runs for a day or two. (My friend Hugh McKay hit one off me that I still remember.)
Wonderful games! It makes me feel good just to write about them.
A HOME MADE FABLE
The author of The World At Two (GWS#6) told me that she had made up a story for her 2+ year-old boy, in which he was the hero, and all the other characters the animals on their small farm. He loved the story. Later she wrote it down and sent me a copy, saying, You may find it a bit cute but a 5 year-old boy wondered–in a whisper–all the way through, Is it true?’
When I asked her if I might print it in GWS, she said OK, but that she thought it didn’t fit and that people might think I was crazy for putting it in. I think it does fit. Many of our readers have very young children who, like the 5 year-old, might just enjoy hearing the story. But it also makes a larger point, that children, whether in city or country, are more likely to be interested in stories in which they play a part, and which are full of things drawn from their everyday life. Parents, or other people who know the children well, are the ideal people to make up such stories. Even if they are not very polished, such stories are likely to be more interesting than most of the stories in books for little children.
A.S. Neill, at Summerhill, used to make up stories for the children there, in which they were the leading characters, chasing or being chased by various spies, crooks, and villains. And as many know, ALICE IN WONDERLAND was made up for the real child who was the Alice in the story. So, take a shot at making up stories for your children. As with everything else, as you do it you’ll get better at it. Here is my friend’s story:
PIG IN THE BED
On Tuesday last week a strange thing went on;
Jack came home early and his parents were gone.
He knew right away that something was up
When he took a look at his friend the pup.
(He was drinking a coke, taking sips as he spoke.)
Hey Jack! Look out! Better step aside.
The horse and her colt are going for a ride!
Jack turned around when the pickup truck
Made the sound that it makes when it’s just starting up.
The horse put it in gear and sputtered past,
Then before she started going too fast,
She yelled, Sorry, Jack, to be taking your car,
But it’s been a long time since we’ve gone very far.
Jack stared, then he wondered, then he said, O.K.,
But will you try to get back by the end of the day?
He shrugged and went on down to the kitchen,
But when he got there it was full of his chickens!
Just fixing a little mid-day treat.
We get awfully tired of old corn to eat,
Said the hens as they mixed and blended and baked
Until they came up with banana spice cake.
Jack looked at that cake and said, Best let them be.
I’ll go in the living room and watch some T.V.
But there was the billy goat stretched out on the couch,
And when Jack tried to move him he started to grouch.
I barely sit down for my favorite show
When along you come and tell me to go!
The nanny and kids were there at his feet
Eating pretzels and popcorn, watching Sesame Street.
Finally Jack said, O.K., I’ll see you around,
But do you think you could please turn the volume down?
Instead Jack went in to take a quick bath,
But once in the bathroom he started to laugh.
For there quite relaxed in the big bathtub
Was the fat mother cow, having a scrub.
Then Jack got mad. What do you mean!
Using my tub! You’re not very clean!
Just the point, Jack. It’s been quite a spell
Since I’ve had a good bath. I was starting to smell.
Jack slammed the door. He was angry and red.
Let me think. I’d better stretch out on my bed.
He went into his bedroom and shut the door,
But stopped when he heard a loud ugly snore.
From his blankets a wiggly tail stuck out,
And on his pillow he saw a big pig snout!
A pig in my bed! In between clean sheets!
The pig rolled over and begged, Let me sleep.
There’s no bed as soft as this in the barn.
I’m sure I’m not doing your bed any harm.
Poor Jack let out a sad long groan.
What can I do? My parents aren’t home.
These animals have to go live in the barn.
This isn’t a nut house. This is a farm!
Then his dog came along and said, Listen, Jack,
You get rid of these animals before your parents come back.
You’ve got to act tough. Play the part of the boss.
Else this house and your truck will be a big loss.
I’ve got it! said Jack, and he started to scream:
Up in the barn there’s chocolate ice cream!
The chickens took wing, the pig climbed out of bed.
The cow left the tub and the goats quickly fled.
Up the road the horse was parking the truck.
Jack ran to the freezer. Whew! I’m in luck!
He got out two gallons of chocolate ice.
Plenty for everyone! As long as you’re nice.
He passed it out fairly to all on the farm,
To the pig in the pig pen and the cow in the barn.
Thank heavens you knew just what to do,
Said the dog, passing his plate. May I have some too?
Certainly, said Jack. But what will mom say
When she sees I ate two gallons of ice cream today?
————————————
TYPING
When I was in the Navy, I taught myself to touch type. It was one of the best things I ever did.
I had been typing, hunt-and-peck style, since i was 10, when my Grandmother had given me a child’s typewriter (only capital letters). At 10, I wrote long stories, or beginnings of stories, on it. In college, I used it to type up class notes. I could type much faster than I could write. But in the Navy much of my typing was copying, where hunt-and-peck doesn’t work so well. I had time on my hands (after the war ended), I knew how touch typing worked, and I decided to learn it. I made a diagram of the keyboard, stuck it on the wall over the typewriter, and began to do all my typing looking only at the diagram, not at the keys. I also invented exercises to strengthen the weaker fingers of my left hand, words like waxed, crazed, sweater, or for the right hand, monopoly, million, etc. In a few months I could touch type much faster than I could do hunt-and-peck. By the time I left the Navy I was a skilled typist.
No skill I have ever learned (except possibly reading itself) has been more useful to me. I used it all the time in my work with the World Federalists. A few years later, when I came to Boston and began teaching elementary school, I typed all the letters that later made up much of HOW CHILDREN FAIL and HOW CHILDREN LEARN. I typed the manuscripts of my first three books, and the rough drafts of all the rest. I usually compose at the typewriter. Except for the first two issues, and a few stories in the third, I have typed everything in GWS. Without this skill, I could not have done, or do, any of the work that has been so important to me.
It is not a hard thing to learn. All you need is a typewriter, a keyboard diagram (which usually comes with the machine, or which you can buy at a stationery store or make yourself), some time, and practice. It is certainly nothing you need go to a school or class to learn. All the young children I have known have been fascinated with typewriters, and Omar Moore found that children five years old or even younger could easily learn touch typing and liked to do it. With electrics, finger strength is no longer a problem.
If I had a child learning at home, I would certainly get a portable electric typewriter. If I could not afford a new one, I would look for a second-hand machine, of which there are many. If that was still too expensive, I would try (using the Directory) to share the cost with one or more unschooling families, with each family having the machine for a certain number of months.
When Omar Moore taught young children to touch type (as a way of teaching reading), he chose a different color for each typing finger. Thus index fingers and all the keys they hit) might be marked blue, second fingers green, ring fingers orange, little fingers red. He marked each child’s fingers with a little dab of paint or magic marker on the fingernail. He made colored caps for the typewriter keys, so that the children had to look at the chart to know which key was which (a good trick in teaching yourself). He found they very quickly learned the keyboard, and that their fingers soon became agile.
I would guess that a child who had learned to type rapidly might have a lot of fun writing stories, certainly much more than if he had to go through the slow and painful business of writing them by hand. (Though parents of children learning at home might also do well to look into Italic handwriting, which was for a while at least taught in many British schools–it is easier to learn, quicker, and more stable, handsome, and legible.) Another advantage of being able to type neatly is that a child can write letters (asking questions, etc.) to adults without giving away the fact that he is a child, and so be reasonably sure of getting a courteous and sensible reply. It is, in short, another path into the adult world.
Many years ago I was talking to a 20-yr-old friend, then looking for a job. I asked if she could type. She said No. I said it might be useful to learn. She said, I don’t want to learn it, because if I know how to type then they’ll just give me some job where I have to type. Well, I suppose that way of looking at things is OK if you are thinking only of good jobs and bad jobs, or about what they are going to make or let you do. But if you are thinking instead of finding meaningful work, then it makes sense to think of making yourself as useful as possible to the people who are already doing the work. Being a good typist is one way. Also, if you are a fast and accurate typist, you will almost always and everywhere be able to find some kind of money-making job, if that is what you need order to do something else that you want.
I would also recommend very strongly to parents who would like to or are trying to take children out of school that if they do not know how to type, at least one of them learn. It will be much better if all letters to school people and/or other officials are typed. For one thing, it is faster,and there may be times when you will want to write very long letters and proposals. For another, it is easier to copy. Most important of all, it is impressive and even a little intimidating to the schools. This is important; it helps to give them the impression, without your actually ever having to say it, that if they get into a battle with you, they are going to lose.
A CASE LOST
GWS#3 reported briefly the case of Tom and Martha Lippitt, who were convicted by a Cleveland Juvenile Court Judge, Angelo Gagliardo, of the charge of civil neglect of their children, because they had taken them out of a church school and were teaching them at home. Recently, a friend has sent us a more complete summary of that case. It says, in part:
On June 20, 1977, the South Euclid-Lyndhurst Board of Education took the Lippitts to Juvenile Court on a charge of civil neglect. (There is no such charge as civil neglect in Juvenile Court). Judge Angelo J. Gagliardo presided over this court . Mr. Lippitt was not permitted to consult with his attorney under penalty of contempt of court, witnesses were not permitted to testify on Lippitt’s behalf, and the Judge continually lost his temper. Therefore, the record does not include the Lippitts’ reasons for refusing to send their children to either a public or a private chartered school. These reasons include: Immoral teachers, bad textbooks, the teaching of Secular Humanism… In the chambers the judge also ordered the plaintiff to bring both criminal and civil actions against the Lippitts for the same charge, neglect of their children. The Lippitts lost the civil neglect case and were ordered to enroll their children in either a private or public chartered school.
On November 2, 1977, Tom was brought to trial on criminal neglect charges. Tom demanded a jury trial. By this action the case was taken out of Judge Gagliardo’s hands. The evidence proving Alice and Amy Lippitt were receiving a proper’ and necessary’ education was so overwhelming that Judge Murray from Madison County ordered a directed verdict of not guilty and said:
There has been no showing that what was taught, the methods or subjects,
was anything other than what was proper and necessary… The testing of the
children would indicate that they are at grade level and are being taught in
accordance with religious beliefs which their parents are in a position
to determine.
On December 7, 1977 Judge Gagliardo stayed the proceedings against Martha Lippitt pending the outcome of the civil neglect appeal. …The Lippitt case was then placed before a three-judge panel: Judges Stillman, Krenzler, and Wasserman. The judges denied Tom and Martha’s appeal. The Lippitts had listed twelve errors in the appeal; however, the judges addressed themselves to only six of the errors…it was not until about two months later that the last six errors of the appeals were ruled on, and then not completely, just as on the first ruling. The judges’ opinion was mailed to the Lippitts without being journalized and Judge Gagliardo immediately issued a warrant for Mrs. Lippitt’s arrest. The law allows a ten day rest period to present a Motion for Reconsideration.
On March 10, 1978 Martha Lippitt was physically dragged out of her own house and her children were taken…to the Metzenbaum Home for Children and deprived of any visitation rights. Martha was taken to jail and released on a $500 bond. …The parents had to put up a $1000 guarantee that they would send their children permanently to the Heritage Christian School (a non-chartered school) or another school with an approved educational’ program. A fine of $100 a day will be levied against the parents for every day they do not send the children to the Christian School. …The Lippitts appealed their case to the Ohio Supreme Court, but the Court has refused to hear it. Next step? The United States Supreme Court.
WHAT CAN WE LEARN?
I have left out some other horrifying details about the way in which this judge runs his court, which would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany. If this report sent to me is accurate, the judge is an incompetent bully and tyrant. There are such judges in many jurisdictions, often appointed in return for political favors and support. The point is that where such judges exist, lawyers know about them. They also know whether or not they can be avoided, and how.
Any unschoolers thinking seriously about a court battle with the local schools would do well to find out in what court or courts, and before what judge or judges, they might have to appear. This is the kind of thing lawyers know. GWS has said in earlier issues that about school law itself we may know, and can surely find out, as much as or more than the lawyers. But about judges and courts, a good local lawyer probably knows a great deal more than we could find out. Of course, we should ask some questions, to find out what s/he knows. And it might be a good idea, if it can be done, to make a few visits to the courtrooms of whatever judges we might have to deal with.
One other thing. During the midst of these proceedings, Mrs. Lippitt left town with the children and went into hiding for two months. Understandable enough, but probably not a good idea. I have no objection to people getting their children out of school by whatever tricks they can think up. But if we are going into court, we had probably better do things by the book.
This is by no means the only such mistake the Lippitts made. Indeed, their whole way of bringing this issue before the court can be seen as practically a textbook example of How Not To Do It. Early in the proceedings, Mr. Lippitt said loudly and publicly, perhaps in court, perhaps outside, perhaps both–it makes little difference which, since his remarks (as he surely intended) received wide publicity–that the public schools were cesspools. In saying this, he needlessly attacked the beliefs and prejudices of a judge who was probably conventional and certainly (as the record shows) highly inflammable. The moral might be, if you are going to have to deal with a judge with a bad temper, find out what things make him angry, and don’t say them if you can avoid it. Beyond that, in attacking such a well-established and powerful institution as the public schools, Mr. Lippitt could only have been seen by the judge as inviting him to agree with him. Now there might, somewhere, be a judge or two who might secretly admit to a trusted friend that they thought the public schools were cesspools. But no judge is going to be willing to make, or even risk appearing to make, such a statement from the bench. There is no use asking judges to agree that the public schools are bad places. They will not, and asking them to do so will only drive them into the position of having to defend the public schools, a position they might not otherwise have chosen to take.
To this mistake the Lippitts, or one of their supporters, added another. At some point in the proceedings she began to picket the courthouse, marching up and down angrily, loudly, and obscenely denouncing the judge. The judge, as might have been expected, overreacted, and (no doubt breaking the law in half a dozen different ways) had her dragged into his courtroom, handcuffed, and forced her to repeat what she had said outside. This bit of 1960’s style courthouse drama may well have seriously prejudiced the Lippitts’ chances of winning their appeal to a higher court. The courts, rightly enough, think of themselves as not only settling disputes and trying cases, but beyond that, as upholding an entire system of law and justice. They are likely to react very strongly and negatively when they feel that the system as such, the very dignity of the courts and the judges, are being attacked, as they clearly were in this case.
Now there might be times when defendants in court, like the famous Chicago Seven, might choose to use courtroom drama as a way of making certain kinds of political statements to the general public. That is OK if you have already decided that you cannot possibly get a favorable ruling from that court, and therefore, that your purpose in court is not to get a favorable ruling but to do something else, whatever that might be. But if you want a court to rule in your favor, above all in a matter as radical as unschooling–far more radical than opposition to the Vietnam war–it would be wiser to treat judges and courts with all possible deference and courtesy.
The summary of the Appeals Court ruling says, in part:
Among a number of assignments of error, Mr. Lippitt, citing State v. Whisner… argued that had he been criminally charged…the state would not have prevailed. In Whisner the court held that the elementary minimum standards of the state board of education should never be so comprehensive in scope and effect as to abrogate a citizen’s fundamental right of religious freedom. In the present case, however, the court of appeals found that the minimum standards concerned do not present the same constitutional problem in that the South Euclid-Lyndhurst Board of Education merely expects the Lippitts to provide their children with an adequate education taught by a properly qualified teacher. Mrs. Lippitt does not possess an elementary teaching certificate, and without it her qualification to teach was not demonstrated to the Juvenile Court. (Ed. italics)
The court of appeals, therefore, held that the interest of the state in insuring (Ed. italics) that the teachers of its school-aged citizens are reasonably competent and knowledgeable must be protected and enhanced. The court further stated that a certification requirement does not in any way conflict with the Lippitts’ stated beliefs, nor does it render instruction at home impossible since Mrs. Lippitt could perform tasks necessary to qualify herself for elementary school teaching. In the present case the Lippitts claimed religious reasons for failing to send their children to both a private and a public school, yet they failed to demonstrate how a public or private education would undermine their religious values. They did not establish that they belonged to an accepted religious group which offered a well-structured alternative to school education.
The court of appeals concluded, therefore, that the Lippitts’ First Amendment rights had neither been impaired nor unduly burdened by the provisions of the compulsory education laws of Ohio. The judgment of the juvenile court was affirmed.
Without the full ruling of the appeals court, we cannot tell how fair or unfair that ruling may have been, nor what are the chances that it may be overruled in a higher court. Certainly the Lippitts were able to convince Judge Murray in criminal court that they were qualified to teach and were in fact doing as good a job as the schools. But this was not part of the record of the juvenile court trial, and it was this trial that was being appealed. I don’t know whether the findings of Judge Murray were submitted as evidence to the appeals court, or whether they considered it, or if they did not, on what grounds, or whether their failure to consider it may be regarded by a still higher court as possible grounds for reversal. What little I have seen makes me suspect that the appeals court had grounds enough for taking the Lippitts’ side, if they wished to do so, but that, perhaps for the reasons I suggested, they did not wish to do so.
It also looks as if Mr. Lippitt and his attorneys relied too heavily on Whisner, and did not prepare enough of a case to show that what they were doing at home was at least as good as what the schools were doing. It is not enough, in short, for parents to say what they don’t like about the schools; they have to make a strong case that what they are doing will be better or at least no worse.
I underlined the word insuring in the summary of the appeals court ruling to make this point, that it may someday be wise or even necessary for an unschooling family to show in court that the requirement that teachers have a certificate does not insure competence at all, and indeed, that there is no evidence whatever to show that people with such certificates are, by whatever measure, more competent than those without them. It could probably also be shown that much of what people have to learn or do in order to get such certificates has only to do with the problems of teaching children in large groups, and is wholly irrelevant to the task of teaching at home.
Beyond that, it might still further be shown that much of what people have to study, and presumably, to appear to agree with, in order to pass education courses and receive a certificate, would and does indeed offend and outrage the religious convictions of a great many people. I have in mind here much of behaviorist psychology, which holds that such ideas as freedom, dignity, choice, and will are illusions and that we are basically like rats, responding automatically to changes in our environment. Many state courts might be ready to rule, if asked, that no one should be required to believe, or pretend to believe, or even to study, such ideas, in order to have the right to teach, whether at school or at home.
And we could add still further that to say to parents who are deeply distressed by things being said or done to their children in school that all they have to do is spend three years of time and $7500+ of money–assuming that there is a school of education near them and that they can get into it–in order to get the teaching certificate that will allow them to teach their own children, is hardly a reasonable remedy for what many people will feel are sharp and immediate wrongs.