I know that's why they do the prattle thing but studies have also shown that you don't have to do it 24/7 either. Doing it at the playground is kind of overkill IMO. Let your kid play and explore with the other kids. Let them have fun, for goodness sakes. Leaving them alone for five minutes won't set them back, lol.
It's obviously an issue for lower income households but I'm pretty sure universal preK is a unity horse on here. Also the fact that there isn't a political will for it in many places has been acknowledged. So what else is there to say about that.
Why do you assume they are doing it 24/7 because they do it at the park? I'm a lot more likely to point out new things to him than the same old shit in my house. He is also more interested because it's new and different and so that seems like a good time to tell him what it is. Plus, peer pressure. I think most people try harder to be a better parent when in public (ie, if they are trying your patience, you may fight a bit harder not to snap at them).
Ok here's an example of what I'm talking about. How many of you know people who put their kids in Kumon for extra enrichment (not tutoring but to get a jump on the next year's curriculum)? They're such a big thing in northern NJ that one of my friends is thinking about buying into a franchise. Honestly, I think that is insane. I usually say that I don't judge parenting things but I think I judge that a little. It's not really going to give your kid that much more of a competitive edge. Is it worth having them give up their free time just to be children? You only get one shot at a childhood.
Your child with average or above average intelligence will do just fine. Let them be. They don't need extra cram classes after school if they're at grade level and learning what they're supposed to be learning.
To be fair some kids genuinely want to participate in supplemental education. My son (4th grade) is doing a 3 week math summer camp (9:00am-4:00pm) and he loves it . He was the one who really pushed to do it. It's not so much about a competitive edge. He just loves math.
Ok here's an example of what I'm talking about. How many of you know people who put their kids in Kumon for extra enrichment (not tutoring but to get a jump on the next year's curriculum)? They're such a big thing in northern NJ that one of my friends is thinking about buying into a franchise. Honestly, I think that is insane. I usually say that I don't judge parenting things but I think I judge that a little. It's not really going to give your kid that much more of a competitive edge. Is it worth having them give up their free time just to be children? You only get one shot at a childhood.
Your child with average or above average intelligence will do just fine. Let them be. They don't need extra cram classes after school if they're at grade level and learning what they're supposed to be learning.
To be fair some kids genuinely want to participate in supplemental education. My son (4th grade) is doing a 3 week math summer camp (9:00am-4:00pm) and he loves it . He was the one who really pushed to do it. It's not so much about a competitive edge. He just loves math.
If your kid wants to do it and asks to do it, that's great. Koko. It's like when mine asks for broccoli as a snack. I might look at them oddly but I hurry to get it out of the fridge, lol.
In terms of effects, I wonder more about how children who were unschooled bridge into the real world. Is it a complete culture shock? Do they adjust well when placed into the workforce, if they aren't accustomed to traditional structures? That sort of thing.
I know some kids who were unschooled and they adjusted just fine to "real life". Most of these kids, though, seek out lifestyles as adults that don't have traditional structures.
My kids are home-educated and we do use set curricula, but my kids definitely don't have the traditional structure and routine of "school". They've never and probably will never have to sit still at a desk. If they want to do their work lying on the floor or in their bed or outside under a tree, they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they'll be ill equipped for a desk job one day. Same with routine. Lessons happen when they happen, depending on the day. That doesn't mean they'll never be able to adjust to a more regimented routine. But it could mean that they will seek out jobs that allow them the same type of freedom when they are grown.
I've actually heard of the opposite being true - that unschooled and homeschooled kids actually adjust better to the workplace and "real life" because they are used to spending their time in more real-life scenarios with varying ages of people instead of a room full of same-aged peers.
Ok here's an example of what I'm talking about. How many of you know people who put their kids in Kumon for extra enrichment (not tutoring but to get a jump on the next year's curriculum)? They're such a big thing in northern NJ that one of my friends is thinking about buying into a franchise. Honestly, I think that is insane. I usually say that I don't judge parenting things but I think I judge that a little. It's not really going to give your kid that much more of a competitive edge. Is it worth having them give up their free time just to be children? You only get one shot at a childhood.
Your child with average or above average intelligence will do just fine. Let them be. They don't need extra cram classes after school if they're at grade level and learning what they're supposed to be learning.
To be fair some kids genuinely want to participate in supplemental education. My son (4th grade) is doing a 3 week math summer camp (9:00am-4:00pm) and he loves it . He was the one who really pushed to do it. It's not so much about a competitive edge. He just loves math.
My daughter has spent the summer telling me how bored she is and how much she misses school. I really regret not working harder to find an academic camp for her this year. ETA: I should add that I'm working with her (and my son) at home, but I'm no substitute for a structured environment led by a qualified instructor.
To be fair some kids genuinely want to participate in supplemental education. My son (4th grade) is doing a 3 week math summer camp (9:00am-4:00pm) and he loves it . He was the one who really pushed to do it. It's not so much about a competitive edge. He just loves math.
My daughter has spent the summer telling me how bored she is and how much she misses school. I really regret not working harder to find an academic camp for her this year. ETA: I should add that I'm working with her (and my son) at home, but I'm no substitute for a structured environment led by a qualified instructor.
There don't seem to be very many options. There are tutoring places in my area but not a lot of full day academic camps.
Ok here's an example of what I'm talking about. How many of you know people who put their kids in Kumon for extra enrichment (not tutoring but to get a jump on the next year's curriculum)? They're such a big thing in northern NJ that one of my friends is thinking about buying into a franchise. Honestly, I think that is insane. I usually say that I don't judge parenting things but I think I judge that a little. It's not really going to give your kid that much more of a competitive edge. Is it worth having them give up their free time just to be children? You only get one shot at a childhood.
Your child with average or above average intelligence will do just fine. Let them be. They don't need extra cram classes after school if they're at grade level and learning what they're supposed to be learning.
I don't know. I don't have kids yet, but the kids I knew who did Kumon growing up were far and away the smartest kids in school and own awards and scholarships from math competitions. A couple Kumon kids went to Harvard (from my public school in a low-income Midwest town), and one of my best friends who did Kumon had enough AP credits to waive a year at Michigan...but instead she triple majored in 3 different sciences (+ premed track).
Of course, that may all be nature instead of nurture as the kids who were put into Kumon also have ridiculously smart parents.
Post by 2curlydogs on Jul 28, 2014 12:49:13 GMT -5
To bring this back on topic, the current way I see to closing this gap is a holistic campaign, with the first point of contact being the medical community. These are, theoretically, the people who have the most regular access to children ages 0-3 and would be most able to identify and flag any developmental delay.
I'm picturing something modeled after the Back is Best campaign. But with educators working in partnership with physicians, community health departments, etc.
If we posit that education is the best way of climbing out of poverty, then we should take a more holistic approach in identifying at-risk children. Instead of waiting until they get into pre-K or K, we should be working with parents and children starting at birth. Maybe this is being done in some communities, but we should be setting it as a national priority.
If Paul Ryan wants an innovative approach to the war on poverty he'd best start with Education instead of re-packaging stale old ideas of block grants.
Of course, that may all be nature instead of nurture as the kids who were put into Kumon also have ridiculously smart parents.
This is what I think is likely and why I was saying earlier that I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for a naturally bright, clever kid to spend a lot of time playing outside on their own if that's how they want to spend their free time. The Kumon enrichment classes just seem like overkill to me. We're talking about kids who would be successful with or without them.
I don't have any personal experience with older kids though so I could be totally off about this.
What's the phrase? The bigotry of low expectations?
A mother living on $420 per month in a community where the average HHI is $26,000 is probably not going to be ABLE to support her child's education with co-curriculars. She's not going to have a choice of schools, public or private, to send him to. She won't be saving for college. No one in that community is going to encourage the little boy to go to college - or a trade certificate, or another type of career, really, probably - which also forms his own expectations about himself and his future career opportunities. He'll have to overcome those expectations on his own at age 17/18 to achieve more success. He might not be REALLY expected to graduate from high school. He might be expected to get a job to help contribute to the house hold income as soon as he can, which is short-sighted in terms of future earning potential, but with the average income being $26k, I don't think "earning potential" is something that community talks about much.
The mom with the girl in ballet 4 times per week is more likely to talk with her child about what she wants to be when she grows up and be able to do things that help support her in that goal. If she wants to be an architect, she can steer her towards more drawing and math activities, take her to museums and buildings that display different architectural forms, and, when she is older, encourage her to take classes like advanced math and technical drawing (and find schools that offer more engineering-type classes), and research and visit colleges with good programs, and get her tutoring if she needs to boost her grades in a certain area, and put her in activities that demonstrate her interest in what she wants to do as an adult. Adults with college degrees, and especially graduate degrees, just have many more intangible benefits when it comes to navigating that system and boosting their kid's chances of success.
To bring this back on topic, the current way I see to closing this gap is a holistic campaign, with the first point of contact being the medical community. These are, theoretically, the people who have the most regular access to children ages 0-3 and would be most able to identify and flag any developmental delay.
I'm picturing something modeled after the Back is Best campaign. But with educators working in partnership with physicians, community health departments, etc.
If we posit that education is the best way of climbing out of poverty, then we should take a more holistic approach in identifying at-risk children. Instead of waiting until they get into pre-K or K, we should be working with parents and children starting at birth. Maybe this is being done in some communities, but we should be setting it as a national priority.
If Paul Ryan wants an innovative approach to the war on poverty he'd best start with Education instead of re-packaging stale old ideas of block grants.
I would also counter that the medical community is a good start, but so many of the working-class poor avoid the doctor and routine visits (and routine immunizations, too) due to health care costs. We'll have to see the stats on subsidized care and if that has increased the likelihood of more lower income care for the working classes, so it might get some of the kids. But a free public education component instead of daycare might be a better option, but I like the thinking that it come from a community awareness - doctors and educators reaching out.
Post by 2curlydogs on Jul 28, 2014 13:10:25 GMT -5
Yes, our shit health care system is the obvious fly in the ointment. The ACA made some strides by requiring insurance cover all costs of wellness appointments but that can't help much if you're policy was grandfathered in.
But if it started, at least it might get some traction and results.
But, yes, I agree we'd also need to see movement in the public education sector. Hence why I said holistic. We tend to segment too much with problems like this.
I know that's why they do the prattle thing but studies have also shown that you don't have to do it 24/7 either. Doing it at the playground is kind of overkill IMO. Let your kid play and explore with the other kids. Let them have fun, for goodness sakes. Leaving them alone for five minutes won't set them back, lol.
It's obviously an issue for lower income households but I'm pretty sure universal preK is a unity horse on here. Also the fact that there isn't a political will for it in many places has been acknowledged. So what else is there to say about that.
Why do you assume they are doing it 24/7 because they do it at the park? I'm a lot more likely to point out new things to him than the same old shit in my house. He is also more interested because it's new and different and so that seems like a good time to tell him what it is. Plus, peer pressure. I think most people try harder to be a better parent when in public (ie, if they are trying your patience, you may fight a bit harder not to snap at them).
It seems like you're projecting a bit.
I tend to do this a lot with my kids. LOL Hell, they honestly don't know the difference because they're busy pointing out the dang slide anyway. LOL
I don't think it's as obnoxious as one might think. You're actively engaging the kids in conversations, and they being to relay their own thoughts back to you. This past week, my BFF (who is an elementary teacher) commented on how well my 3 year old carried on conversations. She wanted to actually record her because she wanted to show off her language skills. I don't have her any "classes" or specialty DVDs. I just talk to her like I would anyone else in my house.
I ask her how was her day at preschool and what she did. She now asks me and my H how our day was at work. LOL It's the cutest thing.
We are in our last year of daycare/preschool/pre-K or whatever the hell you want to call it. Sam starts K next year. He's a smart kid. Is he a genius? Probably not but he's curious and bright. I feel like he will do well in school and gosh maybe he'll even be a little ahead of the curve. But what on EARTH is the advantage of tutoring to get kids 1-2 grade levels ahead of their peers? Are they in an environment that can actually exploit that? Are those kids moving UP grade levels or are they being groomed to be ill-suited to their class environments? It's not to say I would want to keep my kid "only" average but this notion sort of boggles my mind.
Great article! This is the line that struck me: Government meddling in parenting is politically touchy. As Mr Reeves writes: “Conservatives are comfortable with the notion that parents and families matter, but too often simply blame the parents for whatever goes wrong. They resist the notion that government has a role in promoting good parenting.” As for liberals, they have “exactly the opposite problem. They have no qualms about deploying expensive public policies, but are wary of any suggestion that parents—especially poor and/or black parents—are in some way responsible for the constrained life chances of their children.”
How do you find the right balance between policy/government programs and family/personal responsibility? And how much of this is changeable so long as smart, educated people keep marrying and creating more smart, educated people? Because I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of children from a poor mining family from WVa who grow up playing in the woods would have dramatically different outcomes than an intellectual family from San Jose, CA doing the "unschooling" thing.
Great article! This is the line that struck me: Government meddling in parenting is politically touchy. As Mr Reeves writes: “Conservatives are comfortable with the notion that parents and families matter, but too often simply blame the parents for whatever goes wrong. They resist the notion that government has a role in promoting good parenting.” As for liberals, they have “exactly the opposite problem. They have no qualms about deploying expensive public policies, but are wary of any suggestion that parents—especially poor and/or black parents—are in some way responsible for the constrained life chances of their children.”
How do you find the right balance between policy/government programs and family/personal responsibility? And how much of this is changeable so long as smart, educated people keep marrying and creating more smart, educated people? Because I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of children from a poor mining family from WVa who grow up playing in the woods would have dramatically different outcomes than an intellectual family from San Jose, CA doing the "unschooling" thing.
Well, yes. That's the whole point of the article.
The family privileged enough to choose an "unschooling" approach for their children has a hell of a lot more options available to them than the poor single mom in MiningTown, WV who is trying to figure out how to care for a family of 3 on $400 a month.
The question is - how do we, as a society, help close that gap? Because, yes, the government can't do it all, but neither can bootstraps.
It seems to me that every article on this topic comes back to easy, affordable access to two things: health care and education. So let's start there.
Post by LoveTrains on Jul 28, 2014 20:54:20 GMT -5
My city received a grant from Bloomberg to help low income families introduce more words to children under the age of 3. It seems like a great project.
We are in our last year of daycare/preschool/pre-K or whatever the hell you want to call it. Sam starts K next year. He's a smart kid. Is he a genius? Probably not but he's curious and bright. I feel like he will do well in school and gosh maybe he'll even be a little ahead of the curve. But what on EARTH is the advantage of tutoring to get kids 1-2 grade levels ahead of their peers? Are they in an environment that can actually exploit that? Are those kids moving UP grade levels or are they being groomed to be ill-suited to their class environments? It's not to say I would want to keep my kid "only" average but this notion sort of boggles my mind.
There are definitely issues with kids being too far ahead of the curve. It is not engaging to be doing things you already understand how to do, so there are definitely behaviour issues that can come as a result of being bored. Skipping can pose issues socially, especially for kids who are already on the younger end of their year. On the other hand, kids can be bullied for being "nerds" if they are really far ahead of the others. Gifted programs can solve this, but that isn't always possible, especially in areas with low numbers of students in the grade, low budgets, few teachers, etc.
Anecdotally, I also think that kids who find work too easy aren't being taught the study skills and work habits that will help them later in life. I know that my sister, DH, and I were all far ahead of where we had to be academically. We all did very well in school, but didn't really learn things like how to study, since it was very hard to be motivated to study as a teenager when you knew you were going to get A's without putting in the effort. That's not the best mindset to have when you go away to university.