Parents and school involvement

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Parents and school involvement
2586
Thu, 08-23-2007 - 8:49am

My question stems from a personal experience. My middle child is starting kindergarten next week. I've become fairly close with one of my dd's friend's moms- this is her first child entering the school system. She WOH, I do not, plus I have experience with the school, so she's been calling me with questions and comments.

It started to go bad when she called to complain that the kindy orientation is during the day- when she is working. Then it led to complaints about the parents' read aloud program (when the kids are in library) and other opportunities for volunteerism in the school. I get that these things aren't convenient for her, but I'm getting annoyed with the complaining. How can the kids have an orientation at night when they go to school during the day? None of these events are mandatory for parents or kids. And plenty of activities are scheduled for evenings: Back to school night, the PTA picnic, etc.

She thinks because she can't participate, no one should be able to, apparently. Plenty of WOHP do show up for these things. I think she's being unrealistic if she thought she could put a couple of kids through school without ever taking a vacation day. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-12-2005
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 7:50am
Oh I know. I was responding to the notion that daycares and other programs are raising children. If that were true then the same logic would apply wrt schools, unless of course we stop raising them at 5. I'll be sure to use a winkie next time.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 7:51am
i do agree with you there..i don't believe teachers are around to raise children,either.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 7:54am
Pacify? That is truly a strange verb in that context. Dual WOHP families need childcare for their kids, for after school and sometimes for before school as well. It is available because it fills a need. End of story.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 8:18am
sure. bring up the oh so high col in the dc area..are you saying a school's extended day is a more expensive arrangement than a nanny or the chain dc arrangement? bwah indeed.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 8:19am
Don't you know that if you work for material things your kids will turn into Madonna (the material girl, not the Virgin Mary)?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2007
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 9:22am

I think I am familiar with the research you are speaking about. It is the most extensive study ever conducted and I think it is a good one. Yes you are right in the study children who attended more than 4.5 years prior to age five in day care were shown to have a SLIGHTLY higher RISK of behavioural problems. These findings although statistically significant could NOT be determined as casual.

They also found that children who attended high quality day care were more advanced verbally than all others and this association did not decrease with age.

Finally the biggest finding was that other care status did not have the significant impact on school performance or behaviour, parenting and genes did. From the report, "Parenting quality significantly predicted all the developmental outcomes and much more strongly than did any of the child-care predictors".

Cheers!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2006
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 9:28am

sorry I missed the humor, LOL! It's been a very busy morning (1st day back to school for my students!).

Carole

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 9:31am
I think it is semantics again. To me, we all -as members of the community- have a hand in raising the children of our community. Parents are the the guiding forces and the navigators, but teachers certainly have a hand in the raising of our children. I, as a parent, do not raise my children in isolation or without help from others.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-27-2005
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 9:38am

It is absolutely true. The majority of the people they layed off were making the most money and had the most stock.

"Wow if that's really true (and it usually never is BTW) then there's a company whose stock we should short.
That's no way to run a business."

What does it mean by "whose stock we should short"????

You don't think businesses run like this? They do so to get more money in THEIR pockets. We just got an e-mail how the CEO is "allowed" to sell off up to 800,000 shares within the next couple of years. Selling stock is a BIG deal with my company.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-18-2007
Thu, 08-30-2007 - 10:05am

Sigh.

Yeah well, that's just, ya know, like, your opinion, man-The Big Lebowski 

Pages