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
Absolutely Jennie.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I hate to be a pest lol but I don't see how that post relates to the one it responded to. When it comes to stories, rhymes and finger plays, there's actually no evidence that it makes any difference *how* a child learns them, just that they're important for the reasons you said. A child is just as likely to benefit from knowing them if they were taught through one kind of book or another, and even if no materials were involved at all; just singing them with others will do it.
I'm trying to picture these flashcards with nursery rhymes on one side and an illustration on the other, because I haven't seen them. But IMO a thing like that isn't really a flashcard in the way most people think of flashcards, anyway. It's more like a book with the pages taken apart. The only way they could be used as actual flashcards would be either 1. tell the child the rhyme and ask her to choose the right picture, or 2. show the child a picture and ask her to recite the rhyme. That one might be fun, but the child would not have learned the rhyme from the flashcard because she cannot read. Why anybody would want to play a game like that is beyond me, but even if that were the only way a child was exposed to rhymes, the benefit to pre-reading skills would still obtain, IMO.
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,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I agree. In this day and age (and job market) I find that college education just as important as education the elementary, junior, and high school levels. I find that a BA is the norm that employers are looking for in professional fields.
If as a parent, it is our job to make sure that our children have the best education we can provide for them - then I feel it is my job to see it all the way through. I won't foot the whole bill but I will do what I can.
http://www.just-for-kids.com/MAY06NEW.HTM#0439812232
"These interactive card packs comes in a sturdy storage box and contain a set of cards with a drawing from the Real Mother Goose series with touch-and-feel textures on one side and the written out rhyme along with fun activities for the parent and child on the other side. An additional Parenting Guide card for more skill-building activities is included. Hands-on learning occurs when what kids see is reinforced by what they feel and explore. The touch-and-feel cards help young children to understand abstract concepts more easily. For ages 2 to 5.
Available are:
Color Rhymes - These Mother Goose rhymes are all selected to help teach children their colors.
Counting Rhymes - These Mother Goose rhymes all help teach numbers and counting skills."
I will admit that these are geared towards 2-5 and not the 12 month olds we were originally speaking about. This set comes with "activities for the parent and child" which could be beneficial to the parent that might not know where to start.
Then I am not explaining my POV well. The objective is not to make sure the child knows 4 rhymes by heart by school start, That would be a misinterpretation of the study. Nor is the objective to teach the child the rhymes as efficiently as possible. Of course it is good to be exposed to the rhymes either way, but the cards are clearly not necessary. As you say, it would be just as good for the caregiver to sing or recite the rhyme.
Now, if you are going to add a print source to this mix, I would much prefer it be a book, for reasons well outlined by PA. Books are useful in that they convey the concept and experience of "the book." The kids in the study who knew 4 rhymes probably came from a home that had books, in which people read books and read to the child. They became good readers because of the whole package, not because of the 4 rhymes. The 4 rhymes are just a measurable side effect. It is a little bit like our main subject, we do not work for extras, but the extras are a measurable side effect of our working.
<>
I'm all for giving special programming to gifted kids, but IMO giftedness is by definition something rare. Why use approaches used with gifted kids for those who aren't gifted? If they're not gifted but just bright, then IMO they're mainstream students who can and should be educated in the mainstream.
Even if we buy into it that academic talent rather than other types of talent should be the main concern of school (and I don't, necessarily), I'd say that talent is one thing and giftedness is another. I see no reason to confuse them.
<>
I agree that gifted kids should have some sort of special programming. If your dd is gifted, then she's entitled to it.
<>
I believe high performing kids should be well served. But I don't think that necessarily means grouping them by ability. If schools aren't providing for their high performing kids well, I don't think ability grouping is the answer (still talking about little ones here). Our poor response to the problem of how to serve students with a range of academic talent successfully within diverse settings is one of many issues that make education in the US mediocre. But the fact that it is a problem does not mean that any particular solution is the best one, and that goes for ability grouping, too.
<>
I have two responses to that. First, any approach can be applied too rigidly. Students' preferences should be respected whenever possible. Second, if you were always in mixed ability groupings, that's not necessarily a problem unless you weren't getting a good education. If you weren't, that's not necessarily the result of the grouping strategy itself, but rather the way the grouping strategy was used. Some teachers think that just mixing kids by ability magically works by itself to bring everyone along, and that's not how it works at all. There has to be differentiated instruction along with it.
<>
I think it's just that the approach used must have been half-baked. Mixed ability grouping isn't antithetical to high quality differentiated instruction. The two go together, when it's well done.
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,
Pages