| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Yeff wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:18:55 -0500, jmcquown wrote: > >> I can attest to that military thing. > > So can I. We left Germany when I was halfway through 2nd grade (I > was *so* terrified of the moment the teacher would call me to the > front of the class and kiss me on my cheek goodbye!) and all of us > kids were left with an aunt in Pennsylvania while my parents came > down here to Maryland to find a house. > > During math my first day of school they were carrying numbers and I > didn't know what the fcsk they were talking about. I ended up hating > math for the rest of my life over the trouble I had trying to get the > teacher to understand I'd never been taught it, not that I didn't > understand it. She kept telling me to try the problems first and I > didn't know where to begin. > Yes, I think I missed out on the math thing, too, and I hate math. I can do money, no problem. I also had a problem with writing in cursive because I'd missed that class, too. Not with forming the letters, that was no problem. But to me cursive looked like it was all joined together in one long sentence. I remember turning in my first cursive assignment and it was one long sentence separated by some ~ curlicues joining all the words together. Hey, that's what it looked like to me and I hadn't been taught. They called my mom, who had to explain to me (I still wonder why the teacher didn't just tell me) yes, you still break between the words even if the writing looks "curly"  > I was, however, further advanced in reading then my new public > school. We had to read aloud during my first day while sitting in a > circle and all of the kids started laughing when it was my turn. > Very embarrassing as I was certain I hadn't missed any words. Later > that day, during lunch, I overheard another kid telling a teacher > about the new kid in class who could read "a thousand miles an hour!" > Made my day. Excellent! Yes, I learned to read when I was about 3. When I was 6 I was reading Nancy Drew books which (I was given to understand) were geared towards young teen girls, Tom Swift and The Hardy Boys. Reading was never a problem for me; it's a natural propensity and to this day I read about 3 books a week. Television I couldn't care less about. Jill |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dimitri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message > ... > > <snip> > > > Forget >> about counting back change... LOL I actually THANK people who know >> how to count change back to me at a store and they always look >> surprised! >> >> Jill > > > > Want to have fun - after they hit the amount tendered on the cash > register pull out the pennies or exact amount of the change less that > a dollar and watch the "PANIC" > > ;-) > > I really can be a snot sometimes (OK most of the time) > > Dimitri Yeah, it's funny. They often start punching buttons on the register like it's a Magic 8 Ball and will give them the answer, or they call someone over for help. I want to cheer when they know how to figure it out. This should be one of the first things you are taught in terms of math - how to handle money, change, etc. Jill |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >, "jmcquown" > > wrote: > >> basic education in "what is this fruit what is this vegetable". >> Forget about counting back change... LOL I actually THANK people who >> know how to count change back to me at a store and they always look >> surprised! >> Jill > > I was stunned when I saw the register screen that's visible to the > cashier but not the customer. It depicts a cash drawer with the > denominations shown in each section -- and the number of units from > each section required to make the correct change. "Two from this > compartment, one from this one, four from that one. . . ." Jeez. > Oh yikes! I'll have to sneak a peek sometime. 15 years ago I worked for a company that writes point-of-sale software but they never went that far in dumbing it down... I did see it running at that huge wine store in Minneapolis - the name escapes me now - but I saw the computer screen and recognized the software. No picture of a cash drawer on that screen. Jill > > OB Food: > * Exported from MasterCook Mac * > > Bread Salad > > Recipe By : Samantha Demidavicius, 6-2001 > Serving Size : 4 Preparation Time :0:00 > Categories : Salads > > Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method > -------- ------------ -------------------------------- > 2 tablespoons white wine vinegar > juice of one lemon > 1 teaspoon Dijon mustard > 2 cloves garlic, minced > 2/3 cup extra virgin olive oil > salt & freshly ground pepper > > 4 cups day-old Italian/country bread, in 1" cubes > 2 cups grape tomatoes > 1 small red onion, sliced thin > 3 tablespoons minced parsley > 1/2 cup kalamata olives, pitted & sliced > 1 tablespoon capers, rinsed and drained > 6 leaves fresh basil, finger-torn > > Make the dressing by combining the vinegar, mustard, lemon juice and > garlic in a bowl. Whisk in the olive oil. Add salt and pepper. > > Put the bread cubes in a large mixing bowl and pour the dressing over > them. Toss to coat evenly. Let sit for 30 minutes or so. > > To serve, add the tomatoes, onion, olives, parsley, capers and basil > to the bread cubes. Toss and serve. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > NOTES : Samantha Demidavicius made this at the Calgary 2001 Cook-in in > their home. It was awesome! It is adapted from Charlotte Blackmer's > recipe. I brought it to the Twin Cities Winter Cook-in at Louis & > Jennie Gordon's 2/16/03. > > _____ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:03:31 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > Hey, I wanted to ask you this morning about what you packed your wares > > in. The basket looked very nice, but my attention was drawn to the > > basket liner. It had a bandana print, but looked like tissue paper. > > What was it? > > Bandana-print tissue paper. The Gedney jar lids have a bandana print. Nice touch! I'd like to find some of that tissue paper for myself. I wonder if it comes in gingham? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:44:07 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
> Dimitri wrote: > > "jmcquown" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Forget > >> about counting back change... LOL I actually THANK people who know > >> how to count change back to me at a store and they always look > >> surprised! > >> > >> Jill > > > > Want to have fun - after they hit the amount tendered on the cash > > register pull out the pennies or exact amount of the change less that > > a dollar and watch the "PANIC" > > > > ;-) > > > > I really can be a snot sometimes (OK most of the time) > > > > Dimitri > > Yeah, it's funny. They often start punching buttons on the register like > it's a Magic 8 Ball and will give them the answer, or they call someone over > for help. I want to cheer when they know how to figure it out. This should > be one of the first things you are taught in terms of math - how to handle > money, change, etc. > Just "count on" (from the total) and stop at a specific number (the money they are given by the customer). Unfortunately, too many people have to take off their shoes to count above 10. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I too am appalled with the public school system. I have been homeschooling for11 years. I never took more than a couple of sememsters of college.My girls are doing a complete curriculum of high school. They wanted to attend high school this year. So we decided to enroll them for a half day. (This makes them completing school and a half as we jokingly refer to it.) English is a great joke.Li'l ole me has done a far greater job than the accelerated language class. My 14 y o (who is a 10th grader) walked away with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prizes forpoetry, and 1st for short story. The 16 y o won 2nd in short story and 1st and 3rd for drawing. They were correcting the teacher(very politely the teacher told me at a parent/teacher conference He also informed me that they were the best students he has had in several years) that they finally quit because they were embarrassed for the teacher.The students are rude, small minded, have no concept of inter-generational socialization, and what drives my kids most crazy,no original ideas or thoughts. The herd mentality is alive and well in our highly rated and ranked school. Next semester they are taking extra classes at the local college. Sue Who knows a good book when she meets one "Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message ... > OmManiPadmeOmelet at wrote on 6/14/05 9:53 PM: > > > TOO many kids are being graduated that still cannot read or compose a > > decent sentence with a high school diploma. And still don't understand > > how to work fractions. > > > > It's pretty sad that our public schools are getting so bad. > > So the parents who demand excellence out of education just walk away from > public education, leaving only the parents who are too busy feeding their > drug and/or sex addictions to worry about what kind of education their kids > are getting... > > I live in a large city in a small state. Our new schools superintendent is > getting $195,000 a year, plus a brand new SUV, plus a brand new laptop > computer. We have money to buy him a car, which he can surely afford on his > own 6 figure salary, but teachers in our public schools are using books that > were written before the FIRST President Bush was inaugurated. And kids have > to share these old antiquated books, there aren't enough to go around. > > Most of the parents who want their kids to excel in school either get them > into magnet schools or pay for the Catholic schools. The ones who can't > afford to do that or aren't lucky enough to get into magnet schools do the > best they can, but the teachers' hands are tied. They are forced to follow > curriculums that stress "diversity" and "political correctness" but don't > stress fundamental life skills, like reading, communicating and basic math > skills. This is a diverse city and it's important to teach tolerance, > there's no disputing that. But let's get our priorities straight. > > All parents need to fight to make the public schools better. Making it > better for your own kids today means it will hopefully be better for someone > else's kids 4 years down the road. > > I always wonder why the taxpayers have to pay for automobiles for elected or > appointed officials whom we are already paying very generous salaries to... > and trust me, they are not driving around in $9000 Hyundai Accents! These > are big, expensive, gas-guzzling SUVs. If we own Ten $50,000 SUVs, that's > half a million dollars that would be better spent on text books. Let the > schools super and the mayor buy his own damn car, and let's educate the kids > entrusted to the city's school system. > > Still, I think mediocre schools are better than home-schooling. For reasons > already expressed by others. Fear. Small-mindedness, etc. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:56:09 -0500, "sugrifin" >
wrote: >I too am appalled with the public school system. >I have been homeschooling for11 years. I never took more than a couple of >sememsters > of college.My girls are doing a complete curriculum of high school. They >wanted to attend high school this year. >So we decided to enroll them for a half day. (This makes them completing >school and a half as we jokingly refer to it.) >English is a great joke.Li'l ole me has done a far greater job than the >accelerated language class. >My 14 y o (who is a 10th grader) walked away with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd >prizes forpoetry, and 1st for short story. >The 16 y o won 2nd in short story and 1st and 3rd for drawing. >They were correcting the teacher(very politely the teacher told me at a >parent/teacher conference He also informed me that they were the best >students he has had in several years) that they finally quit because they >were embarrassed > for the teacher.The students are rude, small minded, have no concept of >inter-generational socialization, and what drives my kids most crazy,no >original ideas or thoughts. >The herd mentality is alive and well in our highly rated and ranked school. >Next semester they are taking extra classes at the local college. >Sue >Who knows a good book when she meets one Amen, Sue. We're considering home schooling our 9 year old next year. She is by far the most advanced kid in her class; her overall grade average this past year was a 99.7. She reads on a 7th grade level and has us make up math problems for her to work on at home for fun. Her teacher's complaint? She likes to read Harry Potter, C. S. Lewis and other fantasy books that this quarter wit teaching her found "inappropriate" because they dealt with "unchristia"n things and that she "doesn't suffer fools gladly". Apparently she took a little too much pleasure in pointing out a couple of mistakes the teacher made in front of the class. I'm fed up with the public schools myself and it has nothing to do with fear and small mindedness, rather the opposite, along with the abysmal educational standards. Regards, Tracy R. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
sugrifin wrote: > I too am appalled with the public school system. You're just angry because you failed everything and were tossed out on your big promiscuous butt. > I have been homeschooling for11 years. I never took more than a couple of > sememsters > of college.My girls are doing a complete curriculum of high school. They > wanted to attend high school this year. > So we decided to enroll them for a half day. (This makes them completing > school and a half as we jokingly refer to it.) > English is a great joke.Li'l ole me has done a far greater job than the > accelerated language class. > My 14 y o (who is a 10th grader) walked away with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd > prizes forpoetry, and 1st for short story. > The 16 y o won 2nd in short story and 1st and 3rd for drawing. > They were correcting the teacher(very politely the teacher told me at a > parent/teacher conference He also informed me that they were the best > students he has had in several years) that they finally quit because they > were embarrassed > for the teacher.The students are rude, small minded, have no concept of > inter-generational socialization, and what drives my kids most crazy,no > original ideas or thoughts. > The herd mentality is alive and well in our highly rated and ranked school. > Next semester they are taking extra classes at the local college. Have your English language skills ever been examined, I'm sure they have, which is what partially contributed to why you didn't finish high school, doing pot and the football team clinched it. From how you express yourself in the above you are a borderline functional illiterate. I seriously doubt that you earned a GED, you likely never made the attempt. The very least yoose so-called homeschoolers can do is post in a manner that is representitive of your claims. It's not possible to teach the English language with the writing skills demonstrated here of any those who say they are homeschoolers. After some 11 years of your brand of homeschooling I'm positive that your children are already scholastically and emotionally damaged beyond rehabilitation. I'm sure your definition of successfulness for your children is that some day they live in a better trailer than yours, that they're not on the county dole like you, and that unlike you they know who all their children's daddys are. I truly pity your children. Well educated parents don't do homeschooling, because they are well educated they know better, but mostly because they love their children more than their personal agenda. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
ravinwulf wrote: > >We're considering home schooling our 9 year old next year. > She is by far the most advanced kid in her class; her overall grade > average this past year was a 99.7. She reads on a 7th grade level and > has us make up math problems for her to work on at home for fun. Sounds like she's doing great in public school... what is your agenda that you'd choose to damage her future by pulling her out of school?!?!? Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey! Everyone else gets to brag on their kids. I'm gonna take a turn!
My kidlette was speaking in full sentences at 18 months. By 20 months, I had taught her to read phonetically. She was only up to 3-4 letter words, but she was sounding them out by herself. I stopped at that point, because I knew she'd be bored out of her mind by kindergarten and first grade. She promptly forgot all the letter names and sounds. When she went into kindergarten, though, her mind had already been trained to read, so she did very well. When she completed the second grade, she was tested as reading at college level. My second grader was reading Stephen King novels. Of course, boredom did set in, because schools are designed for the average student. In junior high, the school wanted to put her in remedial classes because the bored kid didn't care anymore. I had a very stern talk with the clown, er, counselor who thought the kidlette was sub-par, and I insisted on an IQ test. She tested somewhere in the 140s, probably smarter than the counselor. They still didn't put her in more challenging classes, and she dropped out in her junior year. She went on to get her diploma at an Area Learning Center, and she has a successful career with a very large company. Public schools just don't seem prepared to deal with unusually bright kids. (The kidlette's K-2 schooling was at a church-based school with very high academic achievement for the kids, but their theology was very agenda based. We spent a lot of nights discussing how the teachers' interpretations of the Bible were completely full of shit. This is why we took her out of that school. But she did learn to question what was told to her, and learned some good analytical skills at home!) Carol -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel" > wrote in message > Of course, boredom did set in, because schools are designed for the > average > student. In junior high, the school wanted to put her in remedial classes > because the bored kid didn't care anymore. I had a very stern talk with > the clown, er, counselor who thought the kidlette was sub-par, and I > insisted on an IQ test. She tested somewhere in the 140s, probably > smarter > than the counselor. I had a similar situation with my son. His 8th grade teacher never thought he would amount to anything, especially when he told her he would be a millionaire by the time he was 30 and she would still be a teacher. At 25 he started his own business and beat that goal by a couple of years and now earns about 10X her salary. The combination of too few really dedicated teachers, administrators concerned about having a staff and budgets over real education, lack of discipline because of ACLU lawyers, and parents thinking that schools are warehouses to store there kids while they work, has made a sham of the entire system of education we have. IMO, this started during the Vietnam war when draft dodgers became teachers just to avoid the service. They are now the administrators and still don't know anything that goes on in the real world. -- Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sheldon, I am not the one on trial. My girls are. They are passing with top honours. That tells me that the ability to teach is not relegated to the chosen race. It tells me that the ones who have been given the job of educating this next generation are as a whole doing a very lousy job and they have convinced your generation that teaching is impossible for the uninitiated.. Sue "Sheldon" > wrote in message oups.com... > > sugrifin wrote: > > I too am appalled with the public school system. > > You're just angry because you failed everything and were tossed out on > your big promiscuous butt. > > > I have been homeschooling for11 years. I never took more than a couple of > > sememsters > > of college.My girls are doing a complete curriculum of high school. They > > wanted to attend high school this year. > > So we decided to enroll them for a half day. (This makes them completing > > school and a half as we jokingly refer to it.) > > English is a great joke.Li'l ole me has done a far greater job than the > > accelerated language class. > > My 14 y o (who is a 10th grader) walked away with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd > > prizes forpoetry, and 1st for short story. > > The 16 y o won 2nd in short story and 1st and 3rd for drawing. > > They were correcting the teacher(very politely the teacher told me at a > > parent/teacher conference He also informed me that they were the best > > students he has had in several years) that they finally quit because they > > were embarrassed > > for the teacher.The students are rude, small minded, have no concept of > > inter-generational socialization, and what drives my kids most crazy,no > > original ideas or thoughts. > > The herd mentality is alive and well in our highly rated and ranked school. > > Next semester they are taking extra classes at the local college. > > Have your English language skills ever been examined, I'm sure they > have, which is what partially contributed to why you didn't finish high > school, doing pot and the football team clinched it. From how you > express yourself in the above you are a borderline functional > illiterate. I seriously doubt that you earned a GED, you likely never > made the attempt. > > The very least yoose so-called homeschoolers can do is post in a manner > that is representitive of your claims. It's not possible to teach the > English language with the writing skills demonstrated here of any those > who say they are homeschoolers. After some 11 years of your brand of > homeschooling I'm positive that your children are already > scholastically and emotionally damaged beyond rehabilitation. I'm sure > your definition of successfulness for your children is that some day > they live in a better trailer than yours, that they're not on the > county dole like you, and that unlike you they know who all their > children's daddys are. I truly pity your children. > > Well educated parents don't do homeschooling, because they are well > educated > they know better, but mostly because they love their children more than > their personal agenda. > > Sheldon > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel wrote:
> Hey! Everyone else gets to brag on their kids. I'm gonna take a turn! > > My kidlette was speaking in full sentences at 18 months. By 20 months, I > had taught her to read phonetically. She was only up to 3-4 letter words, > but she was sounding them out by herself. I stopped at that point, because > I knew she'd be bored out of her mind by kindergarten and first grade. She > promptly forgot all the letter names and sounds. If she didn't retain them, then she hadn't learned them in the first place. She was apeing them, which is typical. > When she went into kindergarten, though, her mind had already been trained > to read, She was already familiar with the concept of reading, but she had not been trained to read. > so she did very well. When she completed the second grade, she > was tested as reading at college level. My second grader was reading > Stephen King novels. Listen, I went to college, too. I first attended in the early 80s, then again in the late 90s. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but colleges nowadays have "developmental" (read "remedial") reading courses. So tell me, just WHAT does "reading at college level" mean? Your second grader read Stephen King novels? And comprehended them? Followed the intertwined plot lines? Was able to reconcile the disjointed structure of his storytelling? Or did the child just say the words? > Of course, boredom did set in, because schools are designed for the average > student. In junior high, the school wanted to put her in remedial classes > because the bored kid didn't care anymore. I had a very stern talk with > the clown, er, counselor who thought the kidlette was sub-par, and I > insisted on an IQ test. She tested somewhere in the 140s, probably smarter > than the counselor. What makes you think that she's "probably smarter than the counselor?" Was it because the "clown" disagreed with your maybe less than dispassionate appraisal of the fruit of your loins/of your spit and image/of your flesh and blood/of your efforts/of your legacy? (Of yourself?) > They still didn't put her in more challenging classes, and she dropped out > in her junior year. She went on to get her diploma at an Area Learning > Center, and she has a successful career with a very large company. Sounds like SHE had a problem with motivation, and nothing more. Lots of bright kids turn off. It's not a school's duty to romp in and save them. That's where parenting comes into it. Where were you while this was happening, on the sidelines pointing accusingly at the school? > Public schools just don't seem prepared to deal with unusually bright kids. You mean, yours? > (The kidlette's K-2 schooling was at a church-based school with very high > academic achievement for the kids, but their theology was very agenda > based. We spent a lot of nights discussing how the teachers' > interpretations of the Bible were completely full of shit. This is why we > took her out of that school. But she did learn to question what was told > to her, and learned some good analytical skills at home!) She also learned distrust and disrespect for the teachers you charged with educating her. You taught her that. Congratulations. The longer this thread goes on, the more evident it is that homeschooling is all about parents. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote in message >> But she did learn to question what was told >> to her, and learned some good analytical skills at home!) > > She also learned distrust and disrespect for the teachers you charged with > educating her. You taught her that. Congratulations. I'd contratulate also. You don't think that everyone should just blindly accept everything the teacher says as true do you? Expecially when the teacher is interpreting something, be it religion or history, if the teacher has an agenda, the interpretation will be slanted. Not just teachers, but news reporters sometimes bias a story, not by a lie, but by omitting facts. I guess we all are capable of things like that. Human nature. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> said:
.... A bunch of crap You, madame, are a ****ing bitch. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" > said:
>"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote >in message: The bitch didn't even bother to attribute the quote she was responding to. That was me: >>> But she did learn to question what was told >>> to her, and learned some good analytical skills at home!) >> >> She also learned distrust and disrespect for the teachers you charged with >> educating her. You taught her that. Congratulations. > >I'd contratulate also. You don't think that everyone should just blindly >accept everything the teacher says as true do you? Expecially when the >teacher is interpreting something, be it religion or history, if the teacher >has an agenda, the interpretation will be slanted. Not just teachers, but >news reporters sometimes bias a story, not by a lie, but by omitting facts. >I guess we all are capable of things like that. Human nature. Thanks. My daughter accepts nothing blindly. She has a healthy scepticism without being pessimistic. She's not perfect, but she went into this world more prepared than I was, and I consider that an achievement. Carol -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know this isn't the right place in this thread, but I've deleted the
relevant posts. I'd like to apologize to the group for my outburst a little while ago. No apologies to the mean-spirited, nasty woman I was addressing, however. I get upset when someone questions my integrity or honesty, and I reacted strongly. I'll try not to let it happen again. (Remember when I did that all the time? <G>) I'm trying. Carol -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pennyaline"
<nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote in : > Damsel wrote: >> so she did very well. When she completed the second >> grade, she was tested as reading at college level. My >> second grader was reading Stephen King novels. > > Listen, I went to college, too. I first attended in the > early 80s, then again in the late 90s. I hate to be the one > to break this to you, but colleges nowadays have > "developmental" (read "remedial") reading courses. So tell > me, just WHAT does "reading at college level" mean? i was reading (& comprehending) my father's college textbooks when i was 4. it happens. i particularly liked his Russian- English dictionary because up until then i had only known English. the Russian words were fascinating. > > Your second grader read Stephen King novels? And > comprehended them? Followed the intertwined plot lines? Was > able to reconcile the disjointed structure of his > storytelling? Or did the child just say the words? my 2nd grade teacher (who was dumber than a box of rocks) took away my Arthur C. Clarke novel, Childhood's End. she said it was "inappropriate" for a 2nd grader. she wouldn't even return it to my mother, so mom bought me new copy. while i may have missed a few of the nuances when i was 6, i *did* understand the story. i might have been interested in Stephen King around that age too, but even the Richard Bachman books hadn't seen print at the time. trust me, when one is reading at that level, Dick & Jane just don't cut it  >> Of course, boredom did set in, because schools are >> designed for the average >> student. not exactly. they're designed to make everyone "average"  > Sounds like SHE had a problem with motivation, and nothing > more. Lots of bright kids turn off. It's not a school's > duty to romp in and save them. That's where parenting comes > into it. Where were you while this was happening, on the > sidelines pointing accusingly at the school? it's supposed to be the schools job to provide an education. they don't do well with bright kids. i don't exactly blame the schools though, since IDEA went into effect they must spend disproportinate amounts of time/money 'mainsteaming' kids who have various disabilities, many of whom would be better off NOT in mainstream classrooms. >> Public schools just don't seem prepared to deal with >> unusually bright > kids. > > You mean, yours? no, *any* extremely bright child. schools are ok for average kids. they do not serve the intelligent child well at all. they also aren't very good at dealing with kids with slightly different learning styles. it is a parent's job to advocate for thier kid in these situations. i think my mom got really tired of dealing with the idiots in my schools (not just for me, but also my older brother. my younger brother is lucky. he's just slightly above average). in my day, homeschooling wasn't an option. if it had been i think my parents would have gotten us out of public schools & done so. we didn't have money for private schooling at that point because my dad had a startup business... he invented solid state, miniaturized oscillators. > >> (The kidlette's K-2 schooling was at a church-based school >> with very high academic achievement for the kids, but >> their theology was very agenda based. We spent a lot of >> nights discussing how the teachers' interpretations of the >> Bible were completely full of shit. > She also learned distrust and disrespect for the teachers > you charged with educating her. You taught her that. > Congratulations. i learned that from my teachers directly. i can tell you it's *really* difficult being 7 years old & *knowing* what the teacher is telling the class is incorrect. i was far too shy to challenge a teacher, but i wasn't going to spit out wrong answers on tests just because that's what the teacher said. > > The longer this thread goes on, the more evident it is that > homeschooling is all about parents. i haven't decided if i'll be homeschooling my kid or not. he *won't* be going to public school in any case. it would not be a good fit for his personality & needs. he's currently in private, non-religious preschool. the school goes through 8th grade, so he may just stay there. lee -- war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength 1984-George Orwell |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel" > wrote in message ... > "Edwin Pawlowski" > said: > >>"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> >>wrote >>in message: > > The bitch didn't even bother to attribute the quote she was responding > to. > That was me: > >>>> But she did learn to question what was told >>>> to her, and learned some good analytical skills at home!) >>> >>> She also learned distrust and disrespect for the teachers you >>> charged with >>> educating her. You taught her that. Congratulations. >> >>I'd contratulate also. You don't think that everyone should just >>blindly >>accept everything the teacher says as true do you? Expecially when >>the >>teacher is interpreting something, be it religion or history, if the >>teacher >>has an agenda, the interpretation will be slanted. Not just teachers, >>but >>news reporters sometimes bias a story, not by a lie, but by omitting >>facts. >>I guess we all are capable of things like that. Human nature. > > Thanks. > > My daughter accepts nothing blindly. She has a healthy scepticism > without > being pessimistic. She's not perfect, but she went into this world > more > prepared than I was, and I consider that an achievement. As do I! A genuine congratulations from me O |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel" > wrote in message ... >I know this isn't the right place in this thread, but I've deleted the > relevant posts. > > I'd like to apologize to the group for my outburst a little while ago. > No > apologies to the mean-spirited, nasty woman I was addressing, however. > > I get upset when someone questions my integrity or honesty, and I > reacted > strongly. I'll try not to let it happen again. (Remember when I did > that > all the time? <G>) I'm trying. Big hug |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
enigma > wrote in news:Xns967A5B8F8E707enigmaempirenet@
199.125.85.9: > > no, *any* extremely bright child. schools are ok for average > kids. they do not serve the intelligent child well at all. > they also aren't very good at dealing with kids with slightly > different learning styles. Do any public schools have programs for gifted/talented children? If I remember correctly from previous threads, schools in the US are run on a fairly local level, rather than a state level. Is that right? Do some education administrations cater for brighter than average kids? I'm not sure about all the states here, but I do know that NSW public schools have programs for gifted children. My 11 year old nephew, who is in 5th class, is currently in what's called an Opportunity Class. These are classes for academically gifted children (http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/learni...cplacement.php). He was recommended by his primary school, and sat and passed the test, but it was then his decision as to whether he wanted to try it or not - these classes are not in every school and it meant a change of schools for him. He seems to be enjoying it, and I think is making friends a little more easily than he did previously. There is recognition of gifted children in the early years, and efforts are made to assist them to reach their full potential. His younger brother has also been identified as gifted. Of course there are problems with the public school system here, too, and many parents going to private schools for various reasons, but they do have a policy of identifying and assisting gifted children.Of course there will always be individual teachers who believe children should all just be "average", even if bored silly, but there are also some amazing teachers as well.I believe there are also various programs for assisting children with learning difficulties. Rhonda Anderson Cranebrook, NSW, Australia |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"enigma" > wrote in message . .. > no, *any* extremely bright child. schools are ok for average > kids. they do not serve the intelligent child well at all. > they also aren't very good at dealing with kids with slightly > different learning styles. Within 2 weeks of our daughter starting first grade (a brat attending one of the last Base schools) she told the teacher that she hated school. Since she'd always been enthusiastic about going to school, the smart teacher started watching her and then called us. At that interview the teacher told me that she had realized that N. was reading full books and that where language was concerned she was far ahead of her classmates (she was no more mature than they were and was not much more than average in the other subjects). Did we mind if they placed her in a split 1-2 class and formulate a program for her, since she was too young to be placed in the enriched program (that only started in grade 4)? We agreed to that arrangement and from that time on gr. 1, 2 & 3 she was placed in a split level class, had her own language program and was free to follow along with the higher level if she was interested. This resulted in a challenging environment and a happy kid. Then at the end of grade 3 we moved to another military base. No school on that base so we enrolled her in the local French First Language school for grade 4. There we discovered that the English program was the same as she had done in grade 1 in her English First Language school so we asked if she could just do the workbook at her own pace (IOW, over a weekend) and then get extra French language assignments so that she could get more experience in French. The reply "NO WAY! That's way too much trouble." What a naďve parent I was! I'd assumed that the treatment she got at the first school was the norm rather than the exception. I was in for more shock a year later when I went to the school for open-house night, when daughter was in grade 5. The teacher proceeded to tell us that they didn't use the language text book that was on the curriculum because the students didn't like it, there were too many big words in it. "Excuse me," says I, "what are you saying? Rather than encouraging the kids to increase their vocabulary, you're allowing them to dictate what text books you use and dumbing down the language course?" "Oh, it's fine for your kid who's been doing so well in French all these years!" "Sorry, Miss, my daughter has been doing French exactly 1 year." There was no reply to this. As I later got involved in the classroom I realized that the courses were being taught to the lowest common denominator. Gabby |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel wrote:
> >"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote > >in message: > > The bitch didn't even bother to attribute the quote she was responding to. > That was me: If the bitch you're referring to is me, I suggest that your own reading comprehension skills are questionable. My advice: go back to my response to you and read it from the beginning -- that's where the attribution is. Kiss kiss. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "pennyaline" wrote: > > Damsel wrote: > >> But she did learn to question what was told > >> to her, and learned some good analytical skills at home!) > > > > > She also learned distrust and disrespect for the teachers you charged with > > educating her. You taught her that. Congratulations. > > > I'd contratulate also. You don't think that everyone should just blindly > accept everything the teacher says as true do you? Expecially when the > teacher is interpreting something, be it religion or history, if the teacher > has an agenda, the interpretation will be slanted. Not just teachers, but > news reporters sometimes bias a story, not by a lie, but by omitting facts. > I guess we all are capable of things like that. Human nature. I don't think anything should be accepted blindly. But I also don't think that we should choose the school we send our children to, and then attack the very system we choose to teach them. Remember, she said this happened in the K-2 years. During those years, the child was taught that what her teachers said was wrong. This has a negative impact on a child's opinion of teachers and what they teach. If Damsel felt what was being taught was wrong, she should have shut her mouth and taken the kid out of the school, period. Instead, she ragged on her own choice of school for three years and inculcated that negative message about schooling into the child. If you guys knew half as much about kids as you claim to, you would realize that projecting negative images of people who are prominent in their lives is confusing to children and engenders problems with trust. Or is that what you want to do? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote in message > If you guys knew half as much about kids as you claim to, you would > realize > that projecting negative images of people who are prominent in their lives > is confusing to children and engenders problems with trust. > > Or is that what you want to do? I only know about the kids we raised. They turned out OK. I don't know if they meet your requirements though as you seem to know more than I about raising children. . |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" > said:
>"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote >in message >> If you guys knew half as much about kids as you claim to, you would >> realize that projecting negative images of people who are prominent >> in their lives is confusing to children and engenders problems with trust. >> >> Or is that what you want to do? > >I only know about the kids we raised. They turned out OK. I don't know if >they meet your requirements though as you seem to know more than I about >raising children. . I think we're supposed to be raising lemmings instead of thinking human beings. Whatever. Carol -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:09:42 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote: >"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote >in message >> If you guys knew half as much about kids as you claim to, you would >> realize >> that projecting negative images of people who are prominent in their lives >> is confusing to children and engenders problems with trust. >> >> Or is that what you want to do? So you are under the impression that feeding a kid a positive spin regardless of the truth is somehow better for them? You're wrong. What you suggest amounts to telling the kid a lie and that engenders far more "confusion" and "problems with trust" than having parents who tell them the truth, even when it's not PC or all that pleasant. Not everyone who is in a position of prominence is trustworthy or well intentioned and for her own good as well as that of the society we live in, I want my daughter to be able to tell the difference. I'm not raising a little automaton who assumes that all authority is good. I want her to think for herself and make her own decisions regarding who and what she values. Regards, Tracy R. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
ravinwulf wrote:
> So you are under the impression that feeding a kid a positive spin > regardless of the truth is somehow better for them? You're wrong. What > you suggest amounts to telling the kid a lie and that engenders far > more "confusion" and "problems with trust" than having parents who > tell them the truth, even when it's not PC or all that pleasant. Pay attention, now. What I said was that if the parent thought the school she had chosen to send her child to was inadequate, she should have taken the child out and found another method. THAT would have sent a better message than leaving the child in the situation the parent found unsatisfactory for three years while pounding her thoughts about what morons her teachers are into the kid's brain. > Not > everyone who is in a position of prominence is trustworthy or well > intentioned and for her own good as well as that of the society we > live in, I want my daughter to be able to tell the difference. I'm not > raising a little automaton who assumes that all authority is good. I > want her to think for herself and make her own decisions regarding who > and what she values. Who says there's anything wrong with that? You are so reflexively defensive, you overlook that there is no need to defend yourself. Here is the point you're missing, again: If that parent found the environment and potential influence so noxious that the shortcomings of the school and teachers had to be discussed constantly with a very young child, why did she leave that same child in that same school for three years? That is the seat of the mixed message. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pennyaline" > > Pay attention, now. What I said was that if the parent thought the school > she had chosen to send her child to was inadequate, she should have taken > the child out and found another method. THAT would have sent a better > message than leaving the child in the situation the parent found > unsatisfactory for three years while pounding her thoughts about what > morons > her teachers are into the kid's brain. Quite an assumption. Perhaps she had no other school available. Perhaps if there was one, it was even worse. I was fortunate and went to a large school. When I had problems with a teacher (old nun that was later retired) my mother had me put into the other 5th grade class. Not all schools can do that. When my daughter had a problem with a teacher in 3rd grade, we bought it to the attention of the principal. That teacher was fired. Other parents thought it was a good thing, but not one raised any questions until we did. As in every occupation, there are great ones, there are terrible ones. Parents must be active in the schooling of their children and bitch when they get the few terrible teachers. -- Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote: > Ranee Mueller wrote: > > As to your point about enforced early schooling, I wouldn't be as > > concerned about it from the right wing as the left, public schooling > > isn't exactly trying to indoctrinate kids into little conservatives. > > I had meant that to be a joke, but after reading your reply I gave it some > more thought and I'm now convinced that, yes damn it!! That's exactly what > public education is doing, and always has done. Please find me some of these public school made conservatives. I can assure you that our schools did not produce any, and the few that remained conservative, or became so later, did so in spite of our teachers and administration. > > Right. And give them a greater chance to be mouthy, unruly, violent, > > That depends largely on the child. Some things are "nature," you realize. Some things are nature, indeed, and some circumstances tend to foster those natural things, or create them. Statistically, children who spend much time in daycare, and early preschool, are far more violent, unruly and disrespectful. Anecdotally, every teacher I have met concurs with this, and can pick out the daycare kids in their classroom. I have also been able to figure out which kids in Alexander's class were daycare kids without knowing their parents, or their past, until after coming to that conclusion, and was not wrong about one of them. There is something about the ratio of adult to children in those situations that creates kids, or allows them to continue unchecked in their natural state, who are pushier, ruder and more rebellious. > > be exposed to more disease (so much so that our pediatrician told me > > about a new vaccine for viral (?) meningitis, but then said, "Oh, your > > kids don't need it, they aren't in day care), > > Won't need it because they aren't in daycare?? Your pediatrician is a > dimwit! On the contrary. There are some circumstances which greatly increase one's risk of exposure. There are some circumstances which render that risk virtually nil. Our kids' chances of running into this particular disease was practically nothing, while the kids in daycare had a significantly increased risk of it. It was worthwhile for children in daycare to have the vaccine to protect them, and not worth the risk of side effects for my children to have them. This is very basic cost-risk analysis. > > respiratory > > illness/asthma, general sickness. > > Do you keep your children in plastic bubbles? Incidentally, do you know that > asthma is an autoimmune disease? If they're gonna get it, they're gonna get > it. Not necessarily. There are certain things which create a welcome environment for it, one being repeated respiratory infection. I don't happen to believe that being ill, even at a low grade, is healthy for small children, whose immune systems are not only weaker, but are not physically able to take many of the medications that could help them. > > Those things weren't worth it to us, > > when compared with the fact that our kids are better socialized than > > most, by nature of having multiple siblings at home with whom they play > > and share and learn, our extended church family which is made up of more > > than half children ages 1-16, our extreme distaste for regimenting > > children in their specific age group at all times for learning and > > playing, rather than having mixed ages, the fact that the ethnic > > background, financial status and racial mix in our own family is more > > diverse than the people around us in this entire town, our church is > > just about United Nations, the few neighbor kids are also available to > > play, our extended family has children. > > Uhhhhh... So, things are STILL limited to the family unit, right? I wonder what it is about family life that makes you distrust a family centered atmosphere for toddlers, preschoolers and kindergarteners. > I may be the only one who feels this way, but as I see it your adamant > defense as stated above indicates some real intolerance and lack of desire > to extend beyond yourselves. I think you are the only one who feels that way. My children come into contact with all sorts of people, from different races, ethnicities, social strata, religions, etc. Of course we ground them in our values, but that does not mean that we keep them from all other people. BTW, do you go out of your way to expose your children to conservatives, and take them to different religious services and such to make sure that they are exposed to people and thoughts beyond yourself? > > It's not like we lock them up > > and don't allow them to see anyone else, but I do notice that I don't > > have to worry about making sure they have play dates as much as the > > parents of only children I know or those who have kids spaced so far > > apart they have nothing in common with each other. > > And that relates to home schooling how? Because, there is still socialization in the home for them as well as the social contact with other homeschooling children in co-ops and 4-H groups and scouting troops and church/synagogue/mosque environments, etc. One of the great arguments about home schooling is how the children aren't socialized well enough. This is mostly a problem for only children, and those whose siblings are so far in age from them as for them to have no playmates at home. Children with siblings near their age learn how to share, how to negotiate, how to interact with others, and so on. > > The things the boys picked up in preschool in terms of learning, were > > nothing they couldn't (and didn't) get at home, the junk (calling people > > stupid, poopy heads, pushing, materialism, video game envy, disrespect > > for authority) wasn't part of our home life at all. I understand that > > some of these things creep in at any school, we just didn't think they > > were necessary for 3 and 4 year olds, and try to limit it as much as > > possible. > > These things creep in when your kids simply step out of the house to play. > Three and four year olds are especially susceptible. This, I think, is a fine example of how different homeschooled and privately educated (in schools which discipline) children and public school children (and those private schools which refuse to uphold their rules). Most of the children I know or have known who were privately educated with discipline, or homeschooled do not behave in this way. Even at such a young age, the children I have known who led a family centered life are much more polite, disciplined and respectful. Sure, you occasionally hear something, but it is usually corrected and the child shows a real regret or remorse at having been rude, mean, or whatever. We lead the youth group at our church, and the kids are very comfortable with us, and it has been refreshing to us how nice they are. Even their teasing of each other is not crude. In the past five years, since we began this ministry, there have been only three times that we have had to deal with serious behavioral problems, and in each of those instances, it was with children whose parents took the exposure method of parenting that you advocate. Here is where you and I diverge: I believe that it is not only the parents' right, but obligation to protect their children from harmful influences while they are still too young to understand them, rather than to expose them to it while they are still so young, and hope that they figure out on their own (with little input from us) that they shouldn't be rude, pushy, disrespectful, etc. It is our job as parents to prepare them for these things in the world slowly and with certain parameters to guide them so that they may behave well, make wise choices and become people of honor and integrity, so far as it is within our influence. It was our choice to protect our children, not out of any fantasy that they would never hear foul language, learn about what we consider immoral behavior, or find out about violence and crime, but because we wanted them so immersed in what we were teaching as authentic, true goodness and charity, so that they would recognize the other as false without our having to impress it on them so firmly. Our culture, here in the US, is such that it is difficult to overprotect young children. Billboards, stores, advertising, television, radio, film, even newspapers are full of violence, unhealthy sexual behavior, predators, abusers, vulgar language, disrespect toward authority, and there is no way to shield our children from that, no matter how much we may wish to do so. I would venture to say that it is a rare parent who could shelter their child from any of it. That is not the goal of protecting them, the goal is to teach them to recognize those behaviors, words, actions as unacceptable in themselves and to avoid directing their paths toward them. Regards, Ranee Remove do not & spam to e-mail me. "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
"Gabby" > wrote: > Tell that to the university that has just awarded a big scholarship to Max, > my 15 year old acquaintance who was home schooled. His parents being > military, they decided that home schooling was the only way to ensure that > their two kids received a consistent education. He started university at > the age of 14, taking entry level courses at the local college on a half > time basis and working part time. In September he's off to University for > full-time study. > > He's a well-socialized, well-travelled young man. When Rich and I were first discussing how we would educate our children, one of the pluses on the side of homeschooling was that we could travel to teach them about the places we learned about. Rich is a pilot, and at the time his goal was to work in the airlines, which would have reduced the cost to us considerably for travel as well. Rather than taking them out of school to go learn about Ephesus and Rome, we could go to Rome and Ephesus as part of their schooling. It has worked better for our family, with my abilities and the kids' needs to send them to a private religious school. It isn't a school in our religious tradition, there aren't any of those near us, but they do not teach our kids anything wrong, and although their are certain things they teach which we do not teach our children, it is a relatively simple thing to remind the kids that that is not how we believe, but that it is alright for this school/church to believe it. We have also, by nature of the school's desire for parental input, been able to help them understand where we are coming from and they have been quite polite and accomodating where there are differences. We probably would have preferred to have them in a school whose theology was in line with ours more closely, but this is good practice for them when they are out in the world on their own and their beliefs are different from those of many of their contemporaries. Regards, Ranee Remove do not & spam to e-mail me. "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article > ,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote: > Do any public schools have programs for gifted/talented children? If I > remember correctly from previous threads, schools in the US are run on a > fairly local level, rather than a state level. Is that right? Do some > education administrations cater for brighter than average kids? I'm not > sure about all the states here, but I do know that NSW public schools > have programs for gifted children. My 11 year old nephew, who is in 5th > class, is currently in what's called an Opportunity Class. These are > classes for academically gifted children > (http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/learni...cplacement.php). > He was recommended by his primary school, and sat and passed the test, > but it was then his decision as to whether he wanted to try it or not - > these classes are not in every school and it meant a change of schools > for him. He seems to be enjoying it, and I think is making friends a > little more easily than he did previously. We had these when I was in school, but sadly, they were still largely dumbed down, although I suppose it was still more challenging work than we were getting in the main part of school. My high school was more geared toward the advanced track and the college directed children, but it was also quite agenda based education, and with the exception of one instructor was also graded on a curve, and fairly easily navigated. There was nothing available for those children who weren't headed to college at our school, no shop, no drafting courses, but the advanced work is what used to be considered standard work for western education. Regards, Ranee Remove do not & spam to e-mail me. "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pennyaline wrote:
> > I don't think anything should be accepted blindly. But I also don't think > that we should choose the school we send our children to, and then attack > the very system we choose to teach them. Remember, she said this happened in > the K-2 years. During those years, the child was taught that what her > teachers said was wrong. This has a negative impact on a child's opinion of > teachers and what they teach. > > If Damsel felt what was being taught was wrong, she should have shut her > mouth and taken the kid out of the school, period. Instead, she ragged on > her own choice of school for three years and inculcated that negative > message about schooling into the child. I've been seeing this crap despite my killfilter, so I may as well respond to it. The kidlette received an superb academic education while in private school. The problems with whacked out religious teaching occured only in the final year. We didn't have constant battles with the instructor's religious teaching during that year, either. Once in awhile, the kidlette would come home and repeat something outlandish. At this point, we dragged out a Bible and together, read the verse in context. She learned from the Bible what was really said, and could generally see that her teacher had put meanings to the verses that simply weren't there. Sometimes she disagreed with my assessment. That was her choice to make. And I strongly object to your characterization of my daughter's early language skills as "aping." I had taught her to look at a letter of the alphabet (capitals and smalls) and to know both the name of the letter and the sound it made. With this foundation, I could grab any book in the house, and she could sound out some of the short (3-4 letters) words. Look at enigma's story. Maybe Miche will chime in about her daughter, who is amazingly gifted. What's wrong with my daughter's achievements, which are lesser than enigma's and the girl child's? Purely rhetorical question. You're a vicious individual, and this is the last I'll have to say to you. Ever. Carol |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ranee wrote:
> "pennyaline" wrote: > > I had meant that to be a joke, but after reading your reply I gave it some > > more thought and I'm now convinced that, yes damn it!! That's exactly what > > public education is doing, and always has done. > > Please find me some of these public school made conservatives. I can > assure you that our schools did not produce any, and the few that > remained conservative, or became so later, did so in spite of our > teachers and administration. Then what is the public school system doing? It certainly isn't in the business of producing Liberals. > > That depends largely on the child. Some things are "nature," you realize. > > Some things are nature, indeed, and some circumstances tend to foster > those natural things, or create them. Circumstances cannot "create" a natural state that already exists. But I do understand the point you're making, and I do agree that *some* daycares (not all of them) can seem to turn innocent loveable children into Devil's spawn in no time flat. However, don't forget to factor in the parental influence or lack thereof. > > Won't need it because they aren't in daycare?? Your pediatrician is a > > dimwit! > > On the contrary. There are some circumstances which greatly increase > one's risk of exposure. There are some circumstances which render that > risk virtually nil. Our kids' chances of running into this particular > disease was practically nothing, while the kids in daycare had a > significantly increased risk of it. It was worthwhile for children in > daycare to have the vaccine to protect them, and not worth the risk of > side effects for my children to have them. This is very basic cost-risk > analysis. Look to the future as you do your cost-risk analysis. When the kids go off to college, they'll have to get all of the vaccinations they are missing now. > > Do you keep your children in plastic bubbles? Incidentally, do you know that > > asthma is an autoimmune disease? If they're gonna get it, they're gonna get > > it. > > Not necessarily. There are certain things which create a welcome > environment for it, one being repeated respiratory infection. I don't > happen to believe that being ill, even at a low grade, is healthy for > small children, whose immune systems are not only weaker, but are not > physically able to take many of the medications that could help them. We disagree again. Autoimmune disorders seem to manifest themselves no matter what. Allergies, URIs, pollution, second-hand smoke, first-hand smoke, the absence of some naturally occurring enzymes in the body, physical and psychological stressors... all pitch in to stimulate the body to rebel against itself. > > Uhhhhh... So, things are STILL limited to the family unit, right? > > I wonder what it is about family life that makes you distrust a > family centered atmosphere for toddlers, preschoolers and > kindergarteners. I don't distrust family centered atmosphere. Shall I suggest that you distrust socializing children more broadly early on in life? > I think you are the only one who feels that way. My children come > into contact with all sorts of people, from different races, > ethnicities, social strata, religions, etc. Of course we ground them in > our values, but that does not mean that we keep them from all other > people. > > BTW, do you go out of your way to expose your children to > conservatives, and take them to different religious services and such to > make sure that they are exposed to people and thoughts beyond yourself? Yes, I went out of my way to expose my child to different things. Now that she is an adult, she does it for herself. > > And that relates to home schooling how? > > Because, there is still socialization in the home for them as well as > the social contact with other homeschooling children in co-ops and 4-H > groups and scouting troops and church/synagogue/mosque environments, > etc. One of the great arguments about home schooling is how the > children aren't socialized well enough. This is mostly a problem for > only children, and those whose siblings are so far in age from them as > for them to have no playmates at home. Children with siblings near > their age learn how to share, how to negotiate, how to interact with > others, and so on. You almost had me sold, until you said that children with siblings near their age learn how to share Children benefit immensly from learning to interact and negotiate with other children outside their family circle. We don't behave the same way with outsiders as we do with our families, after all. > > These things creep in when your kids simply step out of the house to play. > > Three and four year olds are especially susceptible. > > This, I think, is a fine example of how different homeschooled and > privately educated (in schools which discipline) children and public > school children (and those private schools which refuse to uphold their > rules). Most of the children I know or have known who were privately > educated with discipline, or homeschooled do not behave in this way. > Even at such a young age, the children I have known who led a family > centered life are much more polite, disciplined and respectful. Sure, > you occasionally hear something, but it is usually corrected and the > child shows a real regret or remorse at having been rude, mean, or > whatever. My belief is that any child who lives in a family has a family centered life, no matter where the child goes to school. So if it is the family centered life that is the deciding factor, all children in families would be polite, disciplined and respectful. > We lead the youth group at our church, and the kids are very > comfortable with us, and it has been refreshing to us how nice they are. > Even their teasing of each other is not crude. In the past five years, > since we began this ministry, there have been only three times that we > have had to deal with serious behavioral problems, and in each of those > instances, it was with children whose parents took the exposure method > of parenting that you advocate. At one point you agree that some things are nature, but in this statement you maintain that nurture is root of the problem. How can that be? > Here is where you and I diverge: I believe that it is not only the > parents' right, but obligation to protect their children from harmful > influences while they are still too young to understand them, rather > than to expose them to it while they are still so young, and hope that > they figure out on their own (with little input from us) that they > shouldn't be rude, pushy, disrespectful, etc. You don't realize that we don't diverge here. A parent who would expose a child to "harmful influences" without standing by to act as a buffer is being grossly irresponsible. No one of sound mind and reason would throw a child to the wolves and wait for him to figure out what to do. Even when it comes to vaccinations, small doses are given and strategies for easing the child's reaction are offered. Taking a page from germ theory and the history of vaccinations: controlled exposure can be a very good thing. > It is our job as parents > to prepare them for these things in the world slowly and with certain > parameters to guide them so that they may behave well, make wise choices > and become people of honor and integrity, so far as it is within our > influence. It was our choice to protect our children, not out of any > fantasy that they would never hear foul language, learn about what we > consider immoral behavior, or find out about violence and crime, but > because we wanted them so immersed in what we were teaching as > authentic, true goodness and charity, so that they would recognize the > other as false without our having to impress it on them so firmly. This is a spiritual issue. I can't agree or disagree with you here. > Our culture, here in the US, is such that it is difficult to > overprotect young children. Billboards, stores, advertising, > television, radio, film, even newspapers are full of violence, unhealthy > sexual behavior, predators, abusers, vulgar language, disrespect toward > authority, and there is no way to shield our children from that, no > matter how much we may wish to do so. I would venture to say that it is > a rare parent who could shelter their child from any of it. That is not > the goal of protecting them, the goal is to teach them to recognize > those behaviors, words, actions as unacceptable in themselves and to > avoid directing their paths toward them. Very well, but remember that despite all of your efforts, all children eventually use their newer experiences as adolescents and young adults to make these decisions on their own. > Regards, > Ranee BTW, a few days back when someone ripped you and your parents for the spelling of your name -- I had figured that you pronounced your name "Rah-nee" or some such variation. That it is actually "Reh-nay" never occurred to me! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel wrote:
> I've been seeing this crap despite my killfilter, so I may as well > respond to it. The kidlette received an superb academic education > while in private school. The problems with whacked out religious > teaching occured only in the final year. We didn't have constant > battles with the instructor's religious teaching during that year, > either. Once in awhile, the kidlette would come home and repeat > something outlandish. Then I misunderstood that part of your post. > At this point, we dragged out a Bible and together, read the verse in > context. She learned from the Bible what was really said, and could > generally see that her teacher had put meanings to the verses that > simply weren't there. Sometimes she disagreed with my assessment. > That was her choice to make. Good girl. > And I strongly object to your characterization of my daughter's early > language skills as "aping." I had taught her to look at a letter of > the alphabet (capitals and smalls) and to know both the name of the > letter and the sound it made. With this foundation, I could grab any > book in the house, and she could sound out some of the short (3-4 > letters) words. Sorry, but reading and language at such a young age are largely mimicry. > Look at enigma's story. Maybe Miche will chime in about her daughter, > who is amazingly gifted. What's wrong with my daughter's achievements, > which are lesser than enigma's and the girl child's? Purely rhetorical > question. Correct. In the same light, there is nothing wrong with my child's achievements, or mine. BTW, proclaiming something as "rhetorical" does not automatically preclude a response. > You're a vicious individual, and this is the last I'll have to say to > you. Ever. Your loss. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote: > Ranee wrote: > > > Please find me some of these public school made conservatives. I can > > assure you that our schools did not produce any, and the few that > > remained conservative, or became so later, did so in spite of our > > teachers and administration. > > Then what is the public school system doing? It certainly isn't in the > business of producing Liberals. AFAICS, it isn't in the business of producing much. > > Some things are nature, indeed, and some circumstances tend to foster > > those natural things, or create them. > > Circumstances cannot "create" a natural state that already exists. But I do > understand the point you're making, and I do agree that *some* daycares (not > all of them) can seem to turn innocent loveable children into Devil's spawn > in no time flat. I wasn't saying they created a natural state, but that they created a behavior response. > However, don't forget to factor in the parental influence or lack thereof. Absolutely, I think perhaps we do not see some things as parental influence in the same way. I think turning your child over to a daycare at 6 weeks, where she doesn't have the attention of a parent, nor the protection from illness is saying a lot about parental influence. So is using the television as a babysitter, and allowing that ill behavior is simply a part of childhood rather than training it away. The ratio of "teacher" to child in a daycare is abysmal, even in the best of circumstances, 7 infants to an adult was acceptable in our area last I checked, 14 toddlers to an adult. This is an environment that fosters ill behavior, if for no other reason than that the adult cannot be on top of all the children all the time to correct them. It is also an environment in which the children cannot receive the individual attention and care, and yes, love of a parent, no matter how much the care giver cares for the children. If one of my children was afraid, I could hold him for half an hour to comfort him, a daycare worker cannot, by nature of the job. Similarly if one was hurt, I could divert attention for prolonged time, as I only ever have four children at home at a time, and they are not the same age. Imagine if I were caring for 7 infants at once. How much care, attention, interaction would take place to each of them individually? Now add older children to the mix. This is not an environment which produces well behaved, well mannered children. It is flawed from the beginning. The children are not adequately supervised, and the children's behavior is largely accepted without reproof, because it takes more time to root it out than the staff have. As it is, a parent at home, ignoring modern fertility miracles which create quadruplets more than nature does, rarely has more than one child at the same age, and in our society, rarely more than two or three children at home at all. We are quite the abnormality by having four. Since two are in school for part of the day, that leaves two at home at most the entire day, until their father comes home. They are able to read, draw, or play while I attend to one who needs specific help, while still having reasonable supervision and care. > > On the contrary. There are some circumstances which greatly increase > > one's risk of exposure. There are some circumstances which render that > > risk virtually nil. Our kids' chances of running into this particular > > disease was practically nothing, while the kids in daycare had a > > significantly increased risk of it. It was worthwhile for children in > > daycare to have the vaccine to protect them, and not worth the risk of > > side effects for my children to have them. This is very basic cost-risk > > analysis. > > Look to the future as you do your cost-risk analysis. When the kids go off > to college, they'll have to get all of the vaccinations they are missing > now. Not for vaccines which are not mandatory, nor even recommended for most people, which is the specific I was discussing. Vaccines against other diseases which are more common, or necessary for schooling have all been given. > > Not necessarily. There are certain things which create a welcome > > environment for it, one being repeated respiratory infection. I don't > > happen to believe that being ill, even at a low grade, is healthy for > > small children, whose immune systems are not only weaker, but are not > > physically able to take many of the medications that could help them. > > We disagree again. Autoimmune disorders seem to manifest themselves no > matter what. Allergies, URIs, pollution, second-hand smoke, first-hand > smoke, the absence of some naturally occurring enzymes in the body, physical > and psychological stressors... all pitch in to stimulate the body to rebel > against itself. There is more than one presentation of asthma, which is what we were specifically discussing. > > I wonder what it is about family life that makes you distrust a > > family centered atmosphere for toddlers, preschoolers and > > kindergarteners. > > I don't distrust family centered atmosphere. Shall I suggest that you > distrust socializing children more broadly early on in life? You already have in several cases in the discussion. You have also accused me of trying to keep my children from learning about anything outside of their home sphere. > > BTW, do you go out of your way to expose your children to > > conservatives, and take them to different religious services and such to > > make sure that they are exposed to people and thoughts beyond yourself? > > Yes, I went out of my way to expose my child to different things. Now that > she is an adult, she does it for herself. I am curious as to the slant you gave for those who were religious, conservative, more protective than you. > > > And that relates to home schooling how? > > > > Because, there is still socialization in the home for them as well as > > the social contact with other homeschooling children in co-ops and 4-H > > groups and scouting troops and church/synagogue/mosque environments, > > etc. One of the great arguments about home schooling is how the > > children aren't socialized well enough. This is mostly a problem for > > only children, and those whose siblings are so far in age from them as > > for them to have no playmates at home. Children with siblings near > > their age learn how to share, how to negotiate, how to interact with > > others, and so on. > > You almost had me sold, until you said that children with siblings near > their age learn how to share Come to our house and be amazed.> Children benefit immensly from learning to interact and negotiate with other > children outside their family circle. We don't behave the same way with > outsiders as we do with our families, after all. No, but in general, people seem to be more polite and kinder to those outside their family. The familiarity allows for a certain amount of advantage that is taken. > > This, I think, is a fine example of how different homeschooled and > > privately educated (in schools which discipline) children and public > > school children (and those private schools which refuse to uphold their > > rules). Most of the children I know or have known who were privately > > educated with discipline, or homeschooled do not behave in this way. > > Even at such a young age, the children I have known who led a family > > centered life are much more polite, disciplined and respectful. Sure, > > you occasionally hear something, but it is usually corrected and the > > child shows a real regret or remorse at having been rude, mean, or > > whatever. > > My belief is that any child who lives in a family has a family centered > life, no matter where the child goes to school. So if it is the family > centered life that is the deciding factor, all children in families would be > polite, disciplined and respectful. Then why do you object so much to those who homeschool, or prefer to shelter their small children more than you chose to do? > > We lead the youth group at our church, and the kids are very > > comfortable with us, and it has been refreshing to us how nice they are. > > Even their teasing of each other is not crude. In the past five years, > > since we began this ministry, there have been only three times that we > > have had to deal with serious behavioral problems, and in each of those > > instances, it was with children whose parents took the exposure method > > of parenting that you advocate. > > At one point you agree that some things are nature, but in this statement > you maintain that nurture is root of the problem. How can that be? I stated before that I believed much of it was nature, therefore my objection to the socialization acquired in most early education facilities. That I agreed that nature contributes, in no way contradicts that nurture can foster, create and exacerbate behaviors that would be rooted out in other circumstances. > Taking a page from germ theory and the history of vaccinations: controlled > exposure can be a very good thing. So, to what do you suggest I expose my children under six? I have observed materialism, violence, vulgar language, rebellion and more in daycare and many preschool settings. If I drop my kids off there, and leave, that is not controlled exposure. Anything I do to correct it after that is simply mop up. > > Our culture, here in the US, is such that it is difficult to > > overprotect young children. Billboards, stores, advertising, > > television, radio, film, even newspapers are full of violence, unhealthy > > sexual behavior, predators, abusers, vulgar language, disrespect toward > > authority, and there is no way to shield our children from that, no > > matter how much we may wish to do so. I would venture to say that it is > > a rare parent who could shelter their child from any of it. That is not > > the goal of protecting them, the goal is to teach them to recognize > > those behaviors, words, actions as unacceptable in themselves and to > > avoid directing their paths toward them. > > Very well, but remember that despite all of your efforts, all children > eventually use their newer experiences as adolescents and young adults to > make these decisions on their own. Absolutely. This is why we are so firm in believing that we should offer our children the best environment we can provide for them to both learn academically and morally. The formation of character will serve them long in life, and help them to learn from their mistakes as well as preserve them from some. It is no guarantee that they will lead a moral life, but abdicating our responsibility to pass on our morality will very nearly guarantee that they don't follow that path. > > Regards, > > Ranee > > BTW, a few days back when someone ripped you and your parents for the > spelling of your name -- > > I had figured that you pronounced your name "Rah-nee" or some such > variation. That it is actually "Reh-nay" never occurred to me! Tell me about it. This is part of why I was so adamant that our children would have names that were easily recognizable in print. I always knew when a substitute or new teacher got to my name on the roster. There would be a long pause, and a puzzled look. I would pipe up with my name, and they would respond something to the effect of "Oh, I can see that now." I have heard all sorts of variations on myname. I thought I had avoided all of that with our children, but in spelling Amira's name as we did, we have run into some people who call her A-my-ra, rather than A-mee-ra. Ah, well. Regards, Ranee Remove do not & spam to e-mail me. "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ranee wrote:
> "pennyaline" wrote: > > Then what is the public school system doing? It certainly isn't in the > > business of producing Liberals. > > AFAICS, it isn't in the business of producing much. Is it in the business of production at all? > > Circumstances cannot "create" a natural state that already exists. But I do > > understand the point you're making, and I do agree that *some* daycares (not > > all of them) can seem to turn innocent loveable children into Devil's spawn > > in no time flat. > > I wasn't saying they created a natural state, but that they created a > behavior response. Okay. I see what you mean now. > > However, don't forget to factor in the parental influence or lack thereof. > > Absolutely, I think perhaps we do not see some things as parental > influence in the same way. I think turning your child over to a daycare > at 6 weeks, where she doesn't have the attention of a parent, nor the > protection from illness is saying a lot about parental influence. So is > using the television as a babysitter, and allowing that ill behavior is > simply a part of childhood rather than training it away. The ratio of > "teacher" to child in a daycare is abysmal, even in the best of > circumstances, 7 infants to an adult was acceptable in our area last I > checked, 14 toddlers to an adult. This is an environment that fosters > ill behavior, if for no other reason than that the adult cannot be on > top of all the children all the time to correct them. It is also an > environment in which the children cannot receive the individual > attention and care, and yes, love of a parent, no matter how much the > care giver cares for the children. You are correct. We don't define parental influence the same way. I define it as what a child gets from its parents while not at school, rather than as a matter of in-school deprivation. > If one of my children was afraid, I could hold him for half an hour > to comfort him, a daycare worker cannot, by nature of the job. > Similarly if one was hurt, I could divert attention for prolonged time, > as I only ever have four children at home at a time, and they are not > the same age. Imagine if I were caring for 7 infants at once. How much > care, attention, interaction would take place to each of them > individually? Now add older children to the mix. This is not an > environment which produces well behaved, well mannered children. It is > flawed from the beginning. The children are not adequately supervised, > and the children's behavior is largely accepted without reproof, because > it takes more time to root it out than the staff have. It isn't meant to produce well behaved, well mannered children. Good manners and good behavior are taught at home, and that can be done for any child who attends public schools. > As it is, a parent at home, ignoring modern fertility miracles which > create quadruplets more than nature does, rarely has more than one child > at the same age, and in our society, rarely more than two or three > children at home at all. We are quite the abnormality by having four. > Since two are in school for part of the day, that leaves two at home at > most the entire day, until their father comes home. They are able to > read, draw, or play while I attend to one who needs specific help, while > still having reasonable supervision and care. "Reasonable" is a judgement call. > > Look to the future as you do your cost-risk analysis. When the kids go off > > to college, they'll have to get all of the vaccinations they are missing > > now. > > Not for vaccines which are not mandatory, nor even recommended for > most people, which is the specific I was discussing. Vaccines against > other diseases which are more common, or necessary for schooling have > all been given. The list of mandated and recommended vaccinations is changing all the time. Meningitis vaccines will probably be mandatory by the time your kids reach college, and who knows what other vaccines will exist by then. > > We disagree again. Autoimmune disorders seem to manifest themselves no > > matter what. Allergies, URIs, pollution, second-hand smoke, first-hand > > smoke, the absence of some naturally occurring enzymes in the body, physical > > and psychological stressors... all pitch in to stimulate the body to rebel > > against itself. > > There is more than one presentation of asthma, which is what we were > specifically discussing. The causative factors are the same. > > I don't distrust family centered atmosphere. Shall I suggest that you > > distrust socializing children more broadly early on in life? > > You already have in several cases in the discussion. You have also > accused me of trying to keep my children from learning about anything > outside of their home sphere. That's how it reads in your posts. > > Yes, I went out of my way to expose my child to different things. Now that > > she is an adult, she does it for herself. > > I am curious as to the slant you gave for those who were religious, > conservative, more protective than you. Excellent point! When my daughter was in middle school, we moved from the Finger Lakes Region of NYS to predominantly Mormon Utah. There's a change for you! Believe me when I tell you that there is tremendous "stranger danger" among the LDS population and the kid was not welcomed with open arms. She kept trying, though, and her best tool was the Utah public school system. She met many other kids her own age, and was even enticed to take Seminary courses (religious instruction offered as prep for LDS missionary service, but gentiles and Mormons not planning a mission are welcome to take it if they want to). By the time she graduated high school, she had many friends and an expanded understanding of the culture around her, and today feels very comfortable right where she is. > > You almost had me sold, until you said that children with siblings near > > their age learn how to share > > Come to our house and be amazed.I was one of five kids, two of us the same age. I would be amazed! > > Children benefit immensly from learning to interact and negotiate with other > > children outside their family circle. We don't behave the same way with > > outsiders as we do with our families, after all. > > No, but in general, people seem to be more polite and kinder to those > outside their family. The familiarity allows for a certain amount of > advantage that is taken. Exactly. It's good for them to learn not to take that advantage. > > My belief is that any child who lives in a family has a family centered > > life, no matter where the child goes to school. So if it is the family > > centered life that is the deciding factor, all children in families would be > > polite, disciplined and respectful. > > Then why do you object so much to those who homeschool, or prefer to > shelter their small children more than you chose to do? Because using that logic, homeschooling or "sheltering" children will be unnecessary. The results desired will be met no matter what, as long as there is a family. > > At one point you agree that some things are nature, but in this statement > > you maintain that nurture is root of the problem. How can that be? > > I stated before that I believed much of it was nature, therefore my > objection to the socialization acquired in most early education > facilities. That I agreed that nature contributes, in no way > contradicts that nurture can foster, create and exacerbate behaviors > that would be rooted out in other circumstances. Using the logic of the family centered model, the nurture factor would be the same in any case. > > Taking a page from germ theory and the history of vaccinations: controlled > > exposure can be a very good thing. > > So, to what do you suggest I expose my children under six? I have > observed materialism, violence, vulgar language, rebellion and more in > daycare and many preschool settings. If I drop my kids off there, and > leave, that is not controlled exposure. Anything I do to correct it > after that is simply mop up. It is controlled exposure. Remember the family centered model and its attendant logic. Nurturing and the rest of parental influence will still be there. > > Very well, but remember that despite all of your efforts, all children > > eventually use their newer experiences as adolescents and young adults to > > make these decisions on their own. > > Absolutely. This is why we are so firm in believing that we should > offer our children the best environment we can provide for them to both > learn academically and morally. The formation of character will serve > them long in life, and help them to learn from their mistakes as well as > preserve them from some. It is no guarantee that they will lead a moral > life, but abdicating our responsibility to pass on our morality will > very nearly guarantee that they don't follow that path. I'm more likely to say that failure of parents to consistently model any lifestyle that they feel is good will very nearly guarantee that their children will not follow *any* path in life, moral or not. > > BTW, a few days back when someone ripped you and your parents for the > > spelling of your name -- > > > > I had figured that you pronounced your name "Rah-nee" or some such > > variation. That it is actually "Reh-nay" never occurred to me! > > Tell me about it. This is part of why I was so adamant that our > children would have names that were easily recognizable in print. > > I always knew when a substitute or new teacher got to my name on the > roster. There would be a long pause, and a puzzled look. I would pipe > up with my name, and they would respond something to the effect of "Oh, > I can see that now." I have heard all sorts of variations on my> name. > > I thought I had avoided all of that with our children, but in > spelling Amira's name as we did, we have run into some people who call > her A-my-ra, rather than A-mee-ra. Ah, well. My name only has four letters: a consonant, a vowel, another consonant then another vowel -- and teachers, store clerks, DMV staff, licensing bureaus, etc. devote themselves to misreading and mispronouncing it. It's an old-fashioned name that doesn't see much use anymore, and people tended to trip over it when they encountered it. I kept my experience in mind when I named my daughter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, pennyaline wrote: > Ranee wrote: >> Absolutely, I think perhaps we do not see some things as parental >> influence in the same way. I think turning your child over to a daycare >> at 6 weeks, where she doesn't have the attention of a parent, nor the >> protection from illness is saying a lot about parental influence. So is >> using the television as a babysitter, and allowing that ill behavior is >> simply a part of childhood rather than training it away. The ratio of >> "teacher" to child in a daycare is abysmal, even in the best of >> circumstances, 7 infants to an adult was acceptable in our area last I >> checked, 14 toddlers to an adult. This is an environment that fosters >> ill behavior, if for no other reason than that the adult cannot be on >> top of all the children all the time to correct them. It is also an >> environment in which the children cannot receive the individual >> attention and care, and yes, love of a parent, no matter how much the >> care giver cares for the children. Oh! My goodness! You know, your'e right, the ratio of teacher to child is abysmal! Obviously, the need is for more kids and fewer adults. After all, if it works in Japan... Lena |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| *--> Michael Jackson <--* | General Cooking | |||
| Michael Jackson | General Cooking | |||
| Michael Jackson | General Cooking | |||
| MICHAEL JACKSON | General Cooking | |||
| Michael Jackson's nose | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
