Your daily reminder that expecting parents to teach their kids at home is super inequitable
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Absolutely hilarious how many posters are falling all over themselves to indignantly insist they FULLY APPROVE of sh*tty public education because they’re good mommies who don’t even need it. Good job ladies, here’s your cookie for doing the job your tax dollars should be doing, now please stop yelling angrily at anyone who suggests you should expect more from your public institutions.
I agree, OP. Just one of the many ways public school here is totally broken. |
Anonymous
| Actually, parents on 100% responsible for their Children’s education. They may choose to outsource some of it by sending their kids to public or private school, religious school, etc. But I would never rely on any school to provide all of the education. Part of being a parent is educating one’s children. |
Anonymous
Precisely. And we can acknowledge this while also acknowledging that some parents are not as well-positioned to support their kids' education as fulsomely as they might like. |
Anonymous
None of that negates the fact that they were educated and most are not. You cannot teach math "beyond the school curriculum" to your kids when you do not know math. |
Anonymous
The universe of parents that aren't willing to be bothered far exceeds those that don't know math. Among our UMC set in NE DC, there is tremendous variation in who supplement and to what degree. |
Anonymous
People want different things from education. My kids came to school reading, I don't want phonics lessons for them but I agree it's needed for those who didn't pick up reading on their own. So I give up a little there--and they do teach phonics. But if 85% of the class is reading, the kids who need more may need to supplement phonics at home. I don't think handwriting and spelling are that important in the digital age. I think the amount they get on both of those is just enough. My kids were in AAP math and we were told that they should know their times tables before starting 3rd grade so they did the on-line games that got those down over the summer. I accept that if I want accelerated math some of it will have to be covered outside of school. I wish they spent a lot more time on science and doing extended science projects in ES, but other parents wish they spent more time on reading, math, handwriting, spelling. The SoLs represent the shared responsibility of what teachers need to teach in this state. You look at what those things are and if there are things that are not on there that you value, you supplement and/or advocate for inclusion. Just realize we all want different things outside of those basics, and may have different ideas on how much of the "basics" are enough. |
Anonymous
But failing how? Failing because they don't teach an entire subject matter? That's not a failing when clearly the curriculum is based on state curriculum. What needs to be taught is being taught, even if your child doesn't grasp it. The rest of the things parents add to their children's education is by choice. If I want my child to learn cursive, I teach him/her cursive. I'm not going to demand the school system adds that to their list of subjects taught because I want it and maybe you don't have time to teach your child too? That's odd rationale. There are so many things we teach our children every day that the school is not responsible for. Public school has limitations. Find a private school which fits all the things that you deem important that will make your child competitive with others. If you can't afford private school, lobby for changes to the public curriculum. It's a matter of resources and opinion. |
Anonymous
You really need to let this one go. You are embarrassing yourself. |
Anonymous
Yes, that’s why they are successful now! Lol |
Anonymous
|
This is a nuanced topic. Ya l know that doesn’t play well on anonymous internet message boards.
I hope that my public school teaches my kid and most other kids well enough that the parents don’t need to learn to become a teacher or hire lots of tutors for the kid to learn to read etc. Is that reality for kids who don’t learn easily? Probably not. Is it inequitable? Well we all pay taxes for it….it’s not perfect but tell me a better way? |
Anonymous
| Children are in school 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 13 years. It is frankly insulting to their intelligence that they need more time than this to learn. The fact that supplementing is necessary (and it is) is due entirely to inefficient schooling. Remote school was a revelation in how much time in education is wasted. It’s not the teachers’ fault, but someone apparently decided it was in our children’s best interest to have Meditation Monday and Wellness Wednesday and social history programs that have zero impact on the reading and math abilities of our country’s six year olds. |
Anonymous
No doubt that schools could run much more efficiently, but a lot of the problem boils down to the nature of communal education. One-on-one, kids are able to learn much faster. I won't demand that busy parents put more on their plate, but it's amazing what kids are able to grasp with a little investment of one-on-one time. ' |
Anonymous
This all makes sense. There are tons of things that schools can and should do better. But the "customer service" model of public education just isn't realistic. With almost any other service, the customer isn't expected to contribute anything apart from payment. But with public education, the degree to which the education sticks/takes is highly (if not predominantly) dependent on what the "customer" brings to the table in terms of prior vocab, background knowledge, pre-reading, numeracy skills, etc. Of course, schools should work to develop all of the aforementioned, but the more a student brings to the table, the more cognitively engaged the student will be with whatever lesson is being conveyed. The "Matthew Effect" is real. It's not so much that one student has necessarily already mastered a skill or an area of knowledge, but that they come in with mental receptors primed to absorb the material in ways other kids do not. This doesn't mean that all parents are to blame, so much as the (unfair and inequitable) demands of modern economic life. See the article linked below with money quotes in bold. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/25/does-it-pay-to-obsess-on-where-your-kid-goes-to-college/ [/url] Parents also determine the degree to which their children enter school each day prepared to build new knowledge. Remember, schools don’t fill student skulls like gas tanks. If they did, the quality of the fuel would be of primary concern. Instead, schools are learning environments in which children participate at different levels of cognitive engagement. Rather than gas tanks, then, imagine sponges. Children with active and education-conscious parents come to school ready to learn—entering Kindergarten with pre-reading skills, huge capacities for language, and early mathematical reasoning abilities. Whatever the particular nature of the learning environment, such students are well-prepared to soak up new knowledge. Finally, children spend far more time at home than in school—roughly twice as many waking hours. This is important for two reasons. First, it means that the home environment matters greatly in a child’s educational development. Going to the library, for instance, does far more for a kid than plopping her down in front of the television. Second, it means that some children are far more prepared to get something out of their school experiences. Most students, after all, wring only a fraction of school’s value from it. Some parents, however, help their children get more out of school by talking with them, cultivating good study habits, setting up quiet spaces for homework, and encouraging their children to read.[/b] |
Anonymous
|
School is a two way street.
To get the most out of it the school needs to be doing it's job. But parents and the home life are just as important it not more important. You need both. Kids who have access to a decent school and a decent home life will do better than kids who are missing one or the other. However, if I were to pick just one, having motivated parents is more important than a good school. Motivated parents will more or less make sure their kids do okay. Only motivated kids will succeed if their parents don't care. |
Anonymous
|
It’s actually negligent parenting not to work with your child. Parents have been doing that forever. If you think that a single person working with thirty children can force them to focus for the majority of the school day, you are delusional. You’re the one who hands them an iPad the second they complain they’re bored, and now you expect them to be titillated by the order of operations? It’s not happening.
A good portion of the school day is spent redirecting behavior, writing legal documents, managing the physical classroom, communicating with parents, collecting and analyzing data, and in meetings. If you think that teachers can or should address every academic need, you are in for disappointment. Your own children are the ones who are damaged if you don’t work with them. It is a dereliction of your duty. Period. |