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
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 1:57pm
Less helpful for what? If you are determined to be helped into laying full responsibilty for your childs performance at the foot of the teacher and school, while avoiding the need to face the fact that some part of your parenting ability or your childs learning ability may be less than others - then yes a class by class comparison is less helpful.


<>

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:10pm
Heh heh heh. The whole problem for iima results from the very fact that parents in general, and her in particular, do compete. Otherwise she wouldn't care.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:26pm
This is the problem with living in the West Coast -- that I miss large chunks of the debate by the time I log on, but....

WRT "Well we don't want to have kids assigned to classes in such a way that some classes can be identified as more highly achieveing than others. How would YOU feel, Mrs Opinion, if your child was always in the slow class?"

How Would *I* feel? Well, I may not feel great, but I would sure *want to* know. You're right. It's outrageous.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-17-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:27pm
You do realize that there are simply differences in ability, don't you? The fact that jr isn't at the top of the class may have nothing to do with his parents reading to him. Jr might just be an average kid. Most of them are, you know. To judge parenting ability on a child's IQ is ridiculous.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:29pm
How realistic is that with the current class size? The farther apart the kids are in a classroom, the more kids will be disadvantaged because the teacher *will* ultimately teach to the average.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:33pm
<> (I'm trying to double quote this as you didn't write this)

IMO, a class by class comparison or comparison within the class is more helpful than a national/state comparisons because in the first case, they are somewhat controlling for factors such as SES. So what if I see that my child is doing better than the average kid in a school in the inner city with less resources? It tells me a lot more to see her in light of how the others are doing in the same school.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:40pm


I heard about this book recently called, I think, "No more excuses." The author was on the radio and she said something that I thought was interesting. Her opinion is that the reason that kids from some "cultures" do better, on average, than kids from other "cultures" is that there are differences in various "cultures" WRT the belief that hard work will result in getting good grades. Of course, there are differences in ability, but I think one gets closer to achieving the maximum amount within that God-given ability if one has the attitude that trying harder may get you farther than you thought based on your past "ability."
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:40pm
The "tiny black squiggles" that are not a part of nature actually do impact children. Children in cultures where literacy is mandatory are much more likely to have vision problems than children in cultures where it is not. But we have decided that if glasses are the price we must pay for literacy, it's not such a terrible price.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 2:41pm
Thats the point. Your parental definition of reading Ks might be different than that of CLW. What you consider 'reading' might appear to be 'unfamiliar with books' to CLW. A teachers definition would be considerably more objective and useful.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-26-2003 - 3:05pm
Its a personality thing.

>

I don't see how any of those things are to be persued enjoyably with a colicky infant and no matter, there is only so much of any of them that I can do without having them start to feel like busy work. I did a whole heck of alot of alot of stuff when I was single and familyless that I don't do now. And I don't miss it either. Because it WAS busy work designed to fill in the volumes of time I had available. Doing the gardneing today because I know I won't have time to do it tommorrow or tomorrow after that or anytime before it actually needs to gets done, is so much more enjoyable than gardening today because I have nothing else to do.

<>

Daily? I think not.

<>

At 4 I didn't think of them as busy work either. I don't now, when I can partake as an adult at an adults level. However, with a baby and toddler in tow these things most certainly were busy work. Not for the children. For me. Fun. But not brain stimulating or challenging. In fact I still visit museums with the children for their benefit only, and they are 7 and 9. I like to read all the information, think about what I'm observing. Interpret and learn at an adult level. My kids do the same - but at their level. I can take days to get through what they are done with in a couple hours. I have to accept that fun is about it for me. If I wanted to go for mentally challenging or stimulating, I'd need to turn my brain off.

Pages