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: 07-02-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 12:44am
And there you go. You too are wiser and more aware than the researchers in this area. Too bad they didn't consult with you and Opinion123 before they drew their conclusions.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 12:49am
My point is that you would know without comparing to the children in the class. You know when your child is bored. You know if your child was reading before he started K. If you attend the school you are aware of where he fits in. The teacher is certainly aware of where he fits in. If remedial work is needed, or if the child is not being challenged, you would know that without the benefit of that comparison - and I reiterate especially in early elementary when comparisons are of little value. Little Johnny who didn't know the alphabet in September may be miles ahead by February.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 1:00am
You might know without comparisons, but you might not. How did all the "researchers" come up with the requirements for where kids "should be" if they didn't look at a number of same-age kids and figure it out based on where those kids were and what they were learning?

This is somewhat of a "personal" issue for me b/c I was bumped up into an advanced class when I was in 1st grade. The teacher knew I was bored and the assignments were too easy for me, so I was sent to a class a few days a week where I could stretch my learning, so to speak. How did she determine this? I never asked . . . maybe she could tell I was bored. Or maybe the fact that I was getting the assignments and finishing first (and correctly) before my peers was the reason. I think it's a combination of things.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 6:32am
Hee!! We've been having fun with this mindset at work. Our shift manager had a baby last February and my co-worker's son and DIL had a baby in August. We have such a good time discussing the babies' respective progress; things like "Is your grandbaby doing calculus yet?" and "What are Eggbert's plans for college?" (Eggbert is the nickname we bestowed upon our shift manager's baby while she was pregnant and it has stuck--even the office newsletter ran the headline "Eggbert Arrives Safe and Sound" when he was born.)

it cracks me up when Mom's just *have* to show what a genius their little darlings are. the fact is, few, if any babies are truly genius and why people cannot simply take pleasure in the miracle of them, I have no idea.

Do you remember years ago, during the first year (or so) of Cheers, when Coach's daughter came to visit him? She was played by Julie Kavner (who does Marge Simpson's voice). She kept trying to explain to her dad that she was no great beauty, which was why men didn't date her, and yet Coach just insisted otherwise and finally, when she's just lit into him about how she's not attractive at all and her Dad hurts her feelings saying she is, he looks at her with such a sweet love and says (words to the following effect), "You are beautiful to me, you always have been. You remind me so much of your Mom and you remember how beautiful she was." and Kavner's character was simply undone by his comment; she finally realized that her Dad really and truly saw her as a stunningly gorgeous beauty, despite not meeting classic outside beauty standards. it was one of the sweetest episodes Cheers ever made; I wish more parents could look at their children in that way--I think they'd delight in them so much more.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 7:22am
Now see, that I don't get at all. I'd have been hootin' and hollerin' and clapping and encouraging my kid to clap, too. I don't get the idea where if someone else's child achieves something, it's a direct reflection on the "unworthiness" of my child....
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 7:53am
Because you know whether or not what you're doing is working or whether or not your child needs extra help. I find it highly beneficial to be able to compare my dd to her class. Moreso than national averages.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 7:55am
No it isn't. Comparing to a national standard and comparing to kids in her class are two different things. National standards are more a measure of how the school is doing. Comparisons of the class my dd is in tell me how my dd is doing in the same environment as her peers.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 7:57am
Well, considering we're saying the same thing the researchers are, they didn't need to. The researchers are saying that different stimuli result in different hard wiring. However, they are sounding alarm bells unecessarily as they didn't present any proof of this being a negative. Like Jay Belsky, who often blows smoke, they read more into something than they likely should have.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 7:59am
No, it so you can get a good feel for where your child is and how their class is performing. Seeing an actual score on a chart has more impact than a teacher saying

"your child is below the median".
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2003
Thu, 11-27-2003 - 8:01am
There was NO lack of professionalism. She showed me the chart, I asked why so many kids were off the bottom, she told me half the kids who start k aren't read to and later added it's not the dc kids who are doing poorly. What is unprofessional about that? She related her observations without naming names.

Pages