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
Sabina
Oh, lifeis a glorious cycle of song, a medley of extemporanea:
And love is a thing that can never go wrong; and I am Marie of Roumania.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
One of the issues is how teachers grade. Many teachers bake in effort and timeliness into grades which push grades up and result in grades not really reflecting what the child knows. A child who tries hard and turns in every assignment can pass even though they don't know the material. Grades are way too subjective.
The test doesn't test all levels. They test what they think a child at grade level can do. Which is why our old school was able to teach dd to hit the 5 points she needed to on the writing section without actually teaching her to write. The assumption was that a student who hits those 5 points can write but you can bypass the system.
Another example is the reason we left our old district. They were teaching Everyday Mathematics which teaches to the test. They taught multiple math tricks to get an answer without actual understanding or establishing proficiency! My daughter was over a year behind in math when we left the district but she could pass the state exam because she could get an answer. Never mind that the methods she was being taught were not conducive to learning algebra later. Anything for a score now.
I have to laugh. Now that algebra will be on the state exams, they're now going back teaching the middle school kids the traditional algorithyms claiming that the kids can do mental math faster with them and get better scores as an explanation for why they've gone backwards and are teaching elementary math to middle schoolers so that the parents don't balk. It makes far more sense to me to teach math right the first time.
Our school has lower math scores in elementary school but they take an upswing about 8th grade while the district we left continues to decline year over year until graduation. At graduation, our school actually has more kids passing the exam but not so during elementary school when they are building their foundation. That strong foundation pays off later but, unfortuately, may cost our school funding for elementary school if they can't make the grade.
I hate the state tests.
<>
You said "can pass" I still see a world of difference between passing and a track record of A's and B's.
I still don't how a A-B student on the IB track (yes In know I didn't mention that on the first time around - couldn't remember the name for a while) can suddenly be held back a year.
But I'll admit you will have a hard time convincing me that ONE test should make or break a whole year.
It may only be necessary to teach to the test if you have many weak students, but that is not how it worked where we lived. The period I remember was back when state testing had been introduced, but long before NCLB. Every year the 4th grade scores were published in the paper. The scores were eagerly anticipated by residents each year, because they were seen as directly related to RE values.
Most of the schools in our general area had scores around 80, i.e. 80% of students performing at grade level (level 3, I think it is called). However, even a drop of one point in a given year was seen as dire and thoroughly awful, so pressure on schools to keep the scores coming was great.
The practical result was that instead of getting individualized projects, for example, kids were given sheet upon sheet with exercises like the ones that would be on the state test. Several friends moved their high-performing kids to private schools or districts with tracking to avoid having their kids in worksheet hell. Maybe our district was an anomaly, but if that was the situation then, I hate to think what NCBL has done to the place.
80% on grade level isn't a particularly good test result. In my district, the percentage of students determined by state-mandated tests to be on grade level is way up in the 90's. That's because the standard is minimal. So there's not too much fuss made over these tests.
But with only 80% on grade level, the school needs to do something drastic. Especially if closer analysis of the results shows that a high proportion of those students are in the "just passing" rather than "highly proficient" zone. That doesn't mean the answer has to be "worksheet hell". A more engaging, more creative approach would probably be called for.
But maybe the fact that only 80% were on grade level and the fact that the solution was "worksheet hell" are part and parcel of the same problem in that district. And there's no reason to suspect that the NCLB testing made a bad situation worse. It might have simply highlighted the problems.
Sabina
Oh, lifeis a glorious cycle of song, a medley of extemporanea:
And love is a thing that can never go wrong; and I am Marie of Roumania.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
I'm not trying to convince you that one test should make or break a year. I'm just pointing out that grades are not, necessarily, a good indicator of how well a student actually performs academically. The test is supposed to be but it's only as good as it's written.
I think there should be alternative assessments offered but you can't always go by grades. Can a child get a an A or a B and not really know the subject? That depends on what the teacher grades. Do the grade attendenace? Effort? How well the child works in a group? Are group grades broken out by individual or does the group get one grade? What is lumped in with academic performance?
Personally, I think grades should be nothing but academic performance. If you want go give separate grades for effort, attendance and group participation, go right ahead but I should be able to look at my child's grade and know how well they've mastered the subject. I think many kids get undeserved grades because teachers inflate them with attendance and such. How often my child showed up has nothing to do with how much she learned other than she couldn't learn it if she wasn't there but that shows up in the quality of her work.
No, these were considered top schools. At the time, Scarsdale schools had scores around 85, which was about as high as you got in those parts, then. I just checked, and current test scores in our old town are now in the high 90s. I very much doubt that the students are really achieving at a much higher level, but who knows.
The kids who were high-performing used to be accommodated within the classroom, i.e. differentation, but that stopped once the test scores were introduced.
If my daughter goes to the elementary where we live now the percentage is 69% in reading and 61% in math - "Meeting High Standards". This is considered a "B" rated school. For a state that has had standardized testing for at least 10 years plus, why are there still schools performing at this low of standards. I would believe that the standard testing is not achieving it's goal.
if you think 80% needs drastic measures, than what about this school (and many schools in this county)?
BTW - I live one of the richest counties in the US - Palm Beach County, Florida
Edited 12/19/2006 1:54 pm ET by piraterose
Pages