Rock and a Hard Place

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Rock and a Hard Place
1524
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 10:45am

There's something on this board that has been bothering me, and I hope I can articulate it.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 8:49am

"But I always try and resist the urge to compare children especially my own as mine are night and day and wouldn't be very accurate."


I know I'm absolutely beating a dead horse here, but what about it wouldn't be accurate?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 8:51am

Although I think the chart idea is slightly whacked, I can grasp what TM is saying.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 9:30am
She's kind of a limited thinker,then,isn't she?A sahm is anyone who picks the kids up after school?Gee,my dh has done that,and he works.Carpools,anyone?My neighbor picks up her kids *after* she gets off work.My ds took a bus to afterschool care two days,and I was a sahm!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 10:37am
I don't think we are actually disagreeing here. What we are differing on is what we consider socialization. IMO, there is much more to being well socialized than play time. I realize that there are academic requirements in K, but social skills training is built into all that learning. It sounds like your curriculum is very similar to ours and I have read the curriculum which includes standards, goals and objectives. Social skills are incorporated into each and every outcome expected. There is huge emphasis placed on core virtues such as sharing, cooperation, being helpful, courteous etc etc.

I wasn't suggesting that the bullying aspect comes from expecting too much from kids entering K. I was suggesting that if children are expected to be *well socialized* by the age of 5, when in fact developmentally they are barely beginning to *socialize*, and if social skills training is not considered at least as important as academics, and if academic competition is encouraged at the K level, well... it sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 10:43am
I am well aware of the benefits of dc. I continue to contend that socialization is a life long process - it needs to be reinforced at school - particularly in Kindergarten. Who said anything about *well socialized*? CLW said that her children were *well socialized* by K and that social skills training is for pre-school. To that I say BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... many children are still not well socialized by adulthood.

I too have seen one year olds playing contentedly in the same room. One year olds, no matter how much exposure to dc or other children, do not engage in cooperative play. Not even the gifted ones.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 10:48am
ITA, there are many many ways a teacher can challenge bright children w/o singling them out. I also agree with TM, who I disagreed with was CLW who indicated that her child dummies down and is aware that the teacher expects more from her than the other children. One of the examples she gave was the teacher having her dd read to the other children. That was exactly my point, that a good competent teacher will accomplish the same thing w/o making the child stand out like a sore thumb.
Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 10:50am
The emphasis should be on "generally." Or maybe "it might benefit."

I've seen too many "low SES" families do a mighty fine job with raising their children. Indeed, some of those children go on to be more successful than their high-SES counterparts.

Anyway, after one's basic needs are met, how much does one *need?* Since we're slinging stereotypes and generalizations around, does that mean I get to use that new "OC" TV show on Fox as an example of high SES gone bad? :-o (I'm completely hooked on that show -- my bad.)

outside_the_box_mom

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 11:22am

Actually I don't think comparing children against their peers is good as either a prediction for the future or today.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 11:29am
I think one of the biggest problems with this whole "higher SES=better for the kids" thing is that people seem to link SES solely and completely to how much money one makes. Iaudrey posted a very interesting link to a very long (and admittedly dry) article a while back that pointed out the "SES" is more than money...it also includes the education of the parents and the status of the job (meaning how important or well-viewed that job is). I could well imagine that two highly educated parents with low-paying but high-status jobs (there are plenty of these out there) would actually effectively have a higher SES than parents with very little education who make a lot more. There is a balance and money is not always the best determinate of what the SES of that family is. A low-income family with very well educated parents may actually have a better chance of educating their kids well than a higher income family with very little education.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Mon, 12-01-2003 - 11:32am
ITA with you yet again. I don't think it even matters if those milestones are met within the *expected* time frames. Especially things like riding a bike. Each and every child has their own strengths and weaknesses. Comparing them to others is, IMO, very counter-productive. Kids do pick up on our feelings even when they are not communicated to them. A parent who is overly concerned with her child achieving particular milestones *on time* can put undue pressure on a child without even realizing it. Which is why I favor praising effort as opposed to accomplishment.

Pages