Working for Lifestyle/Extras
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 11-20-2006 - 11:13am |
Hi Ladies :)
This is my first time on this debate board and I have been dying to jump into some of the topics, but I feel as though they are sooooo long (one in particular is over 1000 replies, yikes!) that starting my own specific one might work out better.
Anyhow, a recurring theme here seems to be what Moms should and shouldn't be going to work for. It seems some are of the opinion that is OK for Mom to work if she must to pay her bills but NOT if its to afford a nice car, house, good neighborhood. This is considered keeping up with the Johnses (who are they???) and thats bad.
Well, I want to know what in the heck is wrong with a women working to have nice things? I don't mean working and leaving baby in child care 16 hours a day, everyday...thats pretty extreme.
I enjoyed a certain lifestyle before having a child, should I have downsized that lifestyle once baby came so I didn't have to work? What about me *wanting* to maintain a certain lifestyle for myself, my husband, and my child makes me a (a) workaholic or (b) striving to keep up with the Joneses?
Don't some people (like myself) simply enjoy living in a nice place with nice things and want their children to have the same experience?
So please, anyone who thinks a women is wrong for WOH if she is not doing so to financially survive but does it to maintain a certain lifestyle...whats wrong with this?
Thanks all :)

Pages
Yes, obviously this would include single parents who FTWOH and SAH/WOH families where the WOH parent worked excessive hours. My feeling though is that it's easier--and more possible-- for SAH/WOH families to establish a healthy work/family balance than dual WOHP's, although obviously many of the latter have the education and career flexibility to do so as well.
Of course not. If that were the case, then the analogy should be, "I use books to foster the love of books; I use flashcards to foster the love of flashcards."
Flashcards, like books, can encourage children to enjoy text and pictures. I agree that books are superior in every way, but I've found that my 18 month old enjoys a variety of print sources, including flashcards.
<>
It was your analogy,
PumpkinAngel
Does your school offer 8th grade Algebra for high-achieving learners so they can take calculus their senior year? Wouldn't that be considered tracking? In fact, as a high school teacher I could almost certainly determine who the "gifted" students were by the level of math they were in. Those without a natural aptitude for math often bowed out of calculus senior year, but these were most often students who had scored well on IQ or other standardized instruments.
If you were a math teacher, how would you go about teaching math at the pace you needed if you had 5 or 10 students who had not yet mastered the order of operations and common denominators? If you were an Eng/LA teacher how would you teach essay writing when you had 5 or 10 students who couldn't even write a cohesive paragraph? Unfortunately, the lowest students often move along without making any significant progress. One positive thing NCLB did for our school is it required us to provide free tutoring for these children. My feeling is that had they been ability grouped in very small classes (1:15) from the earliest sign of difficulty they wouldn't be so far behind by the time they hit high school.
I am not trying to argue gr8teful's point here, because I know nothing of her school, and my own experiences are very different.
However, may I ask why you think it is OK to separate by ability in HS, but not before? I have to point out here that by "ability grouping" I do not mean tracking, just the opportunity for kids to work with others at their own level, some of the time.
Dd has, in fact, been in classrooms of 30 kids for most of her school years. Until 6th grade, the smart kids were largely ignored. By 7th grade (junior high), the program was kicked up several notches and the strategy changed to one of "those of you who can keep up, go for it!" Those who can not keep up generally fail to graduate, or graduate with grades below those needed for entrance to higher education. It is an odd form of triage and the bottom line is that the minimum attainment level is set around 6th grade. There is no ability grouping, tracking, honors or AP at any level of the system. The only thing is that HS (the last 3 years) is not compulsory.
The school system I went through was quite similar in some ways, although class size was smaller and teaching materials better. Also, in the system I went through, the smart kids were ignored, studiously, through 9th grade, rather than 6th. Again, HS was not compulsory and my year about 45% of the kids attended. The rest went to trade schools of some kind.
The only teacher who had some sympathy for the plight of the upper quartile was the math teacher. He rewarded high performance and good guesses with a warm smile. He always gave extra homework that was optional. But, if you did it, you got a few minutes alone with him at the end of class. He called on the smart kids as well as the others. At our reunion a few years ago, it was amusing to observe that even some of the worst kids in the class had decent carreers thanks to this teacher. Several of the smart ones went on to become award-winning scientists. I know it can be done, but I have so rarely seen it actually done.
So, I honestly am curious about how the better students are accommodated in your classroom.
Some would even call it fathering.
PumpkinAngel
"I have found that my kids need me (and dh) much more now (3rd and 5th grades) than they needed when they were younger"
And that is the perfect argument for staying home until all children are grown. But that is for another board!
I find that hard to imagine. How is it possible that a potty-trained, self-feeding 3rd grader would need an adult more than a 1 year old, for example? Obviously the needs change over the years, but imo a basic point of parenting is gradually to develop an adult who is self-sufficient. I do think a child becomes more aware of his need for his parents as he grows, and the complexity of the parenting decisions probably grows as he does, but from my limited experience of 0-17 months I'd have to say that DS needs me less now than he did even 3 months ago. OTOH, his need (and desire) to be around other people has increased.
"Some would even call it fathering."
Sure. I applaud SAHD's!
Pages