Talk:Taking Children Seriously

General

As well as discussing the case studies of children raised using this theory, this article should also mention that one of the key proponents of this theory (David Deutsch) has no children of his own. -- rupert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.185.211 (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does this contribute to the article? To me it says that there is no need to consider the theory on its own merits because we already know that one of the originators doesn't know what he's talking about. Can a reliable source be found to confirm this and describe its relevance? If not it should stay out.Debouch (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How this works out for the children is a matter that should be addressed in the article. Also what about the laws requiring schooling? --rmhermen

Who advocates TCS? Is Taking Children Seriously the title of a book? Is it always referred to with all caps ("Taking Children Seriously"), or is that just the title of a book? I think we should always strive to give the context in which theories are advocated; they don't exist in some Platonic realm, in my opinion, but are created and advocated by people, and it helps a lot to know who has advocated the theories. What does it mean to say that TCS "has close ties to the philosophy of Karl Popper"? What kind of close ties? --LMS

I've been researching home schooling lately, and what this article seems to be describing is most often called invited learning. Is there a significant difference between the two concepts? --Stephen Gilbert

TCS=letting them make the decisions?

Is it me, or is there an implication that TCS=letting them make the decisions? JHK

No because one of the injuctions of TCS is for the parents not to self sacrifice. The decisions need to be a common preference that suites everyone. This involves being very creative with solution ideas until the common preference is found. Lumos3 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that does seem to contradict somewhat what the article says: "If a common preference cannot be found, then the child's desires have priority over the adult's since all forms of coercion of the child are avoided." From that, it does seem that the child has the ultimate decision-making power. — Matt Crypto 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the extremly unlikely event of no common preference being found would the parent decide they had no choice on that occaision but to self sacrifice their needs and go with the childs wishes alone. Lumos3 13:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. — Matt Crypto 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Org vs movement? Quote

I believe that TCS is an orginization or a movement, isn't it? Also, isn't this an outgrowth of the educational reform movement that took place in the 1960's and 70's? And I also like how whoever edited this page last used the euphamism "libertarian."

Also, I would like to add a quote:

"There is no longer an educational system. Its character has been completely transformed and it now clearly reveals itself to be what for many decades it has been in the process of becomming: namely, and agency working for the barbarization of youth."

- George Reisman, professor of economics, Pepperdine University, The Intellectual Activist. --Jzcool

Janusz Korczak

Is this in any way related to theories of Janusz Korczak? He thought that children have to have respect, and respect for children, tkaing seriously their problems is very important thing. He lived before WWII [[szopen]]

HCR

The association between TCS and the Helping childrearing mode deMause describes should be mentioned. I don't think either of the movements is aware of each other, let alone have formal or historical connections. But they are extremely similar. The difference seems to be that TCS is mainly intellectual and grew out of an educational philosophy, whereas Helping childrearing is emotional and grew out of insights in pediatrics and child psychology.

The thing is, not only are TCS and HCR consistent with each other, they are the only philosophies which are consistent with each other. By that I mean that if you're an HCR parent, you have to be an TCS parent as well. And probably vice versa. So really, they're two sides of the same childrearing/educational theory.

Btw, I think that HCR has fewer propaganda problems; it's much simpler to explain why it's a Good Thing. -- Ark

Autobiography Guideline, Bias, etc.

While I am very interested in TCS, I think this page is verging on a violation of WP:AUTO. Sarah is closely associated with the concept of TCS, and the only reference to this article links to her website. To me, that suggests the problems with autobiographical bias. And that in turn seems confirmed by the fact that the article does not clarify whether TCS is an organization, an idea promoted by an organization, or an idea that exists independently of an organization. Ethan Mitchell 20:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Article.

The following comment was placed in the article page. I moved it here. Lumos3

For further understanding of the issue that considers the attitude of New Age movement for this problem, the novel "The Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield is sugessted. Posted by anon User 62.162.83.183, 20:38, 14 December 2006

How far?

If the parents don't do things against the child's will, how far will this go? What if the child needs surgery (say, appendicitis), and the child says no? are there laws that say that the child has to get it? I'm really curious about this. Thanks. :-) Ilikefood 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for the Uk, but here, as long as a person can understand the medical treatment, then it is their right to refuse it. This means any child can refuse any form of medical treatment, with no legal way to force them to have said treatment, on the condition that they can understand the consequences of not having the treatment etc. --NeoNerd 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable/does this exist?

I can't find anything real about it on google.P4k (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

294k Google hits on Taking Children Seriously, 19.1k on "Taking Children Seriously", including the organizations website. It's a movement and mailing list. What "real" things are you looking for? 216.36.186.2 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's not clear to me there's many reliable sources on this topic. — Matt Crypto 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen

This entire article is just copy and pasted from: http://www.k12academics.com/taking_children_seriously.htm --Alexc3 ^(talk) 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed gradually since 2001 so it's more likely that website is copying it rather than the other way around.72.95.240.157 (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I propose removing the notabilty box from the article as it is now well provided with citations and links. Lumos3 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-tagged with notability concerns. The article is poorly-sourced, mostly primary sourcing, and half of it in its current state is about Karl Popper as an influence, rather than about the movement itself. Tacyarg (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]