so sick of hearing....
Find a Conversation
so sick of hearing....
| Mon, 08-06-2007 - 1:34pm |
hello everyone!! i just read the cnn article on how burnt out and guilty the working mom is...and how hard it is to incorparate "quality" time...and all i can say is WILL YOU COME OFF IT PLEASE!! i work-40 hours a week; sometimes 6 days a week to get all my hours...and i have 2 children-7 and 3...and you know what-every day during the school year, i walk my dd to school...i volunteer at my dds school-in her classroom and on field trips-i have the last 2 years and plan to do more of the same this coming year...i keep the house clean-do the dishes and laundry, go grocery shopping, etc. and you know what-neither of my kids feel slighted. we just took a week long vacation where we went to an amusement park and then to visit my sil for a few days...they have a lil shallow pool-and i go "swimming" with them often-usually before i go off to the adult world of work...we go on shopping trips with my mom and visit a cousin who has a huge pool and the adults play cards outside on the deck when the kids swim...we play games, we take walks, we go to parks...it just boggles my mind. yes i get tired-and yes there are days i wish i didnt have to go in to work...but then theres days that i cant wait until i go in-some women are meant to stay at home and theyre happy doing it...and some women are meant to work outside the home-i need that adult stimulation-i need my friends and my friends are all behind that deli counter with me...again i dont feel my kids are slighted in the least-my own mom was a stay at homer and she didnt volunteer at school and we never took the kinds of trips and outings my kids are lucky enough to have on a regular basis...i dont feel guilty when im at work-i dont think being a working mom hurts my kids...im getting sick and tired of hearing how unhappy working moms are, or how guilty i should feel cuz im not with my kids 24/7...maybe im the exception...or maybe the media focuses too much on the exceptions and a lot of working mommies feel like me...??? take care!!
joanne
maman2goons@yahoo.com
joanne
maman2goons@yahoo.com

Pages
Yes. We. Did.
And did she suffer then and now for not being in a gifted program for those few years? Is she way off track now as she applies to college?
Those children with high IQs will find their way without gifted programs. But children with Special needs will not find their way without sufficient help, and by that I do mean funding and education of these administrators of Special ed. Yes, I think a lot more money needs to be spent across the US (you have firsthand experience that Texas rightly lives up to its ranking as the 49th State in education) on Special Ed.
I don't think the super-intelligent children need to be burned out with extra coursework and homework before they even enter Middle School. Let them burn themselves out in high school where grades actually matter ~ that's a joke. Relax. Just a joke.
I know your DD's brief foray into a gifted program was a full experience, and not just additional work. But that is the way in many reputable gifted programs across the US, like the one we have in my town. Sorry but I see no need whatsoever.
ot but rate this district's mission statement if you will please....
http://www.mariemontschools.org/mission.htm
..this is a public shcool that sort of places itself as scholar central in this town. because of it's geographic location and the fact that there is lots of money there,it is a somewhat advanced,accelerated school district. i have been told this competes well and above some of the best private schools in the area,too. but this district can NOT turn anybody away for admittance if you live there. and that's because it's a public operated school.
i find it hard to believe there's actually selective public schools. or maybe i just need clarification of what you mean by selective. do you mean schools have reputations for having fantastic art programs,sport programs,etc or do you mean selective as in enrollment? public schools can *not* select their enrollment. otoh,private schools can and often do.
"I think working moms should get more praise...it takes alot more "grit" to be away from your children to work & make a living...then it does to stay home with them."
I think that you probably shouldn't make a statement this bold until you have done both.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Public schools can not turn away students. They can, however, selectively place them into different programs. Some of these programs are "alternative education" for so-called "troubled" kids, some of these programs are vocational-techinical programs and some are accelerated/gifted programs; the latter are often called magnet schools.
This -- http://www.ossm.edu/ -- is one such school. "The Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics (OSSM) was created through legislative action in 1983 and graduated its first class of 44 seniors from across the state in 1992. It is designed as a two-year residential public high school for the academically gifted students in mathematics and science. The school currently has 71 juniors, 63 seniors and an ultimate enrollment estimated at 300."
Here's a short synopsis of their admission requirements: "Admission to the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics is a highly competitive process initiated by written application. Approximately 70 to 80 students are selected each year from an applicant pool of three hundred students. Since accepting its first juniors in the fall of 1990, OSSM has selected students from all of Oklahoma’s 77 counties. Students make application for admission in their sophomore year for a two-year course of study beginning in their junior year. The application consists of several interest inventories, written essays, parent statement, recommendations from an English teacher, mathematics teacher, science teacher, principal and counselor, student transcript and ACT score." For the full process, see http://www.ossm.edu/admit/admit.htm
For a general description of magnet school, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_school.
Another site to see: http://www.kempslanding.vbschools.com/about.html -- It too is selective admission.
No, just corrected. Oh my, where to begin?
Let's start with the fact that you've still not posted a single source for your claims about 1983, much less 1981, the statute you meant to reference, and that this wordy response is really just a distraction for your inability to do so.
Now then:
Litigation partner means partner in charge of the firm's litigation practice, not the sole partner engaging in litigation. Am I wrong that you're the former PI associate? How could you possibly not understand that?
As for what I know or practice, there are traditional labor lawyers who primarily practice before the National Labor Relations Board or who work on union related issues. That was my focus in the early 80's, when unions represented more than the 8% of the private sector that they represent today. I still handle NLRB or union matters, but I said I was a "labor and employment attorney". Employment law, as you should know, is exactly the fair employment practices litigation that we're discussing. I do try cases in federal court, and occasionally in state court and do so for clients across the country. I currently have a number of cases in NY, one in Seattle, one in LA and in Miami. I'm admitted pro hac vici for the non-NY cases, as are the associates working for me on those cases. I am intimately familiar with the various employment discrimination laws and have probably forgotten more about them than you'll ever know.
And by the way, Section 1981 has absolutely nothing to do with unions. Lily Ledbetter didn't take a look at Section 1983, she was a plaintiff who sued under Title VII.
Now, a citation for your claims about 1983?
Pages