Kindergarten - my child "going postal" every morning...

"David desJardins" wrote in message
...
Some people have said that it's possible to monitor what's going on in
the school just as well without ever being there. I'm doubtful that
that's true, and even if it were, I still don't really understand why
people would go to lengths just to maintain that distance. It's like
deciding that I'm going to interact with my children by two-way
television, instead of being with them in person. Perhaps, with an
effort, I could find out just as much about them as if I were there, but
I don't see why I'd want to do it that way. While my children aren't
school age yet, and maybe I will be surprised, it seems to me that
spending a couple of hours in a classroom now and then would be by far
the most efficient and effective way to find out what's going on there.

Well, first and foremost, I think it's important for kids, even in
kindergarten or first grade, to develop confidence in their own ability to
handle things without Mommy and Daddy constantly running interference for
them. Now, of course, sometimes, you *have* to run interference for a 5 or
6yo; they're just not *able* to solve all problems they might encounter
themselves. Still, school is an environment *designed* to meet the needs of
children and, therefore, kids *ought* to be able to negotiate it reasonably
well without hanging onto their parents' coattails. That's not to say that
*all* schools do meet their needs of children or are readily negotiable by
every child, but I believe I should see some *evidence* that my child isn't
able to manage on his or her own before getting directly involved.

Another reason I personally have made the choice to stay away from the
classroom is that, on the one occasion I did observe, I was a *huge*
distraction to my son. Although I think he would *like* me to volunteer in
the classroom on a more regular basis, I think my presence is far more
hindrance than help to him. So, unless there's some evidence of a problem
(resistance to going to school, poor grades, indications from the teacher
that there are behavior problems, etc.), I prefer to let my son have school
as a sphere of his life where I'm *not* involved since I am so constantly
involved in nearly every other sphere of it. He needs to develop as an
independent human being capable of getting along with others and doing what
needs to be done, and school is one of the first places he'll have the
opportunity to do that.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [17mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"...we patiently sat by his door, waiting for it to open so he could tell us
all about who he had met" -- from _Uncle Andy's_ by James Warhola

Barbara writes:
Well, first and foremost, I think it's important for kids, even in
kindergarten or first grade, to develop confidence in their own
ability to handle things without Mommy and Daddy constantly running
interference for them.

I just don't see how spending a couple of hours in a classroom, once in
a while, in order to have some contact with what's going on there and to
play a part in the process, is "constantly running interference".

Now, of course, sometimes, you *have* to run interference for a 5 or
6yo; they're just not *able* to solve all problems they might
encounter themselves.

You have placed an intense focus on "problems". I don't think that it
has to be so adversarial (i.e., the parent only has any role in
education when there's something "wrong" at the school). I see it as a
cooperative process from day one. It just seems so clear to me that a
school where all of the parents cooperate to educate their children is a
better idea than a school where the parents turn the whole matter over
to "professionals", and only have any role if there's a "problem".

I guess I'm coming to the same point of view that Elizabeth has
expressed, albeit reluctantly. Those of us who see school as a
cooperative process among all of us, can volunteer in our schools, and
contribute to make them as good as we can. And I won't feel guilty
about contributing to my schools, and not helping other schools where my
children don't go, since there seem to be many parents who don't want my
kind of help, anyway.

David desJardins

Bruce and Jeanne wrote in message ...
Ann Porter wrote:

"Kevin Karplus" wrote in message
...

One that I was surprised they didn't do is to visit the sewage
treatment plant, which is just a few blocks from the school. I think
the first-grade teacher might do it this year as part of the "liquids
and solids" unit---it simply hadn't occured to her, though the plant
does do a lot of field trips for more distant schools.

Eww. I realize sewage treatment is very (very) important, but I prefer not
to think about it, let alone visit the facility where it's done.

Sort of like how I prefer to think of my hamburger as coming from
cellophane-wrapped packages, rather than from a cow.

I remmber going to our water treatment plant while in grade school. It
was an interesting field trip and not as stinky as one would think.

I took Emma's Camp Fire group (yup, I'm one of those apparently
irresponsible and uncaring parents who volunteer through a youth
organization, rather than in the classroom) to our local wastewater
treatment facility on a field trip. It was indeed very interesting.

Water quality is an issue for communities world-wide, and a field trip
to the water treatment plant would probably be a good field trip for
everyone.

Warm Regards,


Claire Petersky )

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

"David desJardins" wrote in message
...
Barbara writes:
Well, first and foremost, I think it's important for kids, even in
kindergarten or first grade, to develop confidence in their own
ability to handle things without Mommy and Daddy constantly running
interference for them.

I just don't see how spending a couple of hours in a classroom, once in
a while, in order to have some contact with what's going on there and to
play a part in the process, is "constantly running interference".

I guess it depends a great deal on what you mean by "once in a while". My
experience has been that parents who volunteer in the classroom do so for a
set number of hours on the same day each week. Of course, any parent can
drop in and observe during class time any time they wish, but in general,
most parents who are in the classroom are there on a regular basis far more
than what I'd call "once in a while". And the teachers tend to prefer that
classroom volunteers commit to being there on a particular day at a
particular time so that they know what resources they will have to assist
them at any given time. I can't blame them for that.

I'm just not sure how much you can reasonably expect to contribute to the
process or how much insight you can reasonably expect to gain from "a few
hours once in a while" if that means dropping in for a couple of hours once
every month or two.

Now, of course, sometimes, you *have* to run interference for a 5 or
6yo; they're just not *able* to solve all problems they might
encounter themselves.

You have placed an intense focus on "problems". I don't think that it
has to be so adversarial (i.e., the parent only has any role in
education when there's something "wrong" at the school). I see it as a
cooperative process from day one.

I see it as cooperative as well. It's just that *my* part of the process
isn't primarily or necessarily accomplished *at school*. I certainly
collaborate with my children's teachers when it comes to ensuring that
they're learning what they should and generally doing well emotionally as
well as academically. It's just that I don't think I need to be *in the
classroom* to do that.

It just seems so clear to me that a
school where all of the parents cooperate to educate their children is a
better idea than a school where the parents turn the whole matter over
to "professionals", and only have any role if there's a "problem".

Ah, but that's not what I'm suggesting. What I *am* suggesting is that the
part of school that happens at school is only one part of the educational
process. What happens at home is equally valid and important, and the part
that happens at home is the part I'm responsible for.

I guess I'm coming to the same point of view that Elizabeth has
expressed, albeit reluctantly. Those of us who see school as a
cooperative process among all of us, can volunteer in our schools, and
contribute to make them as good as we can. And I won't feel guilty
about contributing to my schools, and not helping other schools where my
children don't go, since there seem to be many parents who don't want my
kind of help, anyway.

I'm not remotely suggesting that I think *no one* should volunteer in the
classroom or otherwise "do something for their schools". What I'm suggesting
is that no one should be *expected* to do so, any more than anyone should be
expected to purchase tickets for and attend the police ball in order to get
police protection. If folks want to do *extra*, that's fine and even
laudable, but I think it should be viewed *as* extra, rather than as an
obligation or expectation.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [17mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"...we patiently sat by his door, waiting for it to open so he could tell us
all about who he had met" -- from _Uncle Andy's_ by James Warhola

Barbara writes:
I guess it depends a great deal on what you mean by "once in a
while". My experience has been that parents who volunteer in the
classroom do so for a set number of hours on the same day each week.

I don't have any such experience, so maybe I'm naive, but I don't see
any justification for this "all or nothing" approach. With 20+ students
in a class, if all of the parents showed up for several hours every
week, they could hardly fit in the room. I would be surprised and
disappointed if the school rejected my participation because I wouldn't
be available every week. I don't think that's a good policy, and it
certainly would discourage participation.

You have placed an intense focus on "problems". I don't think that it
has to be so adversarial (i.e., the parent only has any role in
education when there's something "wrong" at the school). I see it as a
cooperative process from day one.

I see it as cooperative as well. It's just that *my* part of the process
isn't primarily or necessarily accomplished *at school*.

When you divide your children's education into "my part" and "their
part", I think you've lost the cooperative principle that's important to
me. For my kids, I reject the idea of separate "parts". It's all "my
part".

David desJardins

"David desJardins" wrote in message
...
Leah Adezio writes:
I'm only going by what Marji specifically *wrote* -- no implication at
all -- that if you don't volunteer in public schools, you're a bad
citizen.

With all due respect, that's not what she said. She said (exact quote):
"Someone who doesn't do what they can to help public schools is being a
bad citizen." I'm not sure if you misread this, or what, but I know I
don't like being misquoted, and I doubt she likes it either.

Fair enough...though considering the greatest bulk of the discussion has
been specifically about *volunteering*, I think it's a valid
*interpretation*. But I'll concede the point.

You have
clearly said that you can't do any more than you're doing now---so, just
reading what she actually wrote, she's not criticizing you at all,
because you're doing what you can.

What I resent is that it shouldn't *matter* -- the 'doing what one *can*'
thing. People should have the right to make these choices for themselves
and be able to choose where they spend their altruistic time and money
without being judged by *anyone*.

There are parents here who donate their time to other interests involving
children -- coaching, religious activies, community activities, etc. Are
their efforts no less valid because they choose to be altruistic somewhere
else besides public or private schooling? There are those who choose
activities or organizations that have little to actually do with children or
education of any kind at all...are *they* wrong? Should they be judged by
anyone?

And why should *my* current circumstances be allowed special dispensation
(as Noreen was so generous to give -- and don't I feel sooooo much better
now, thanks very much), anyway? Why *should* I, recently widowed, be given
a pass when someone whose spouse walked out on them suddenly, might not?
We're both still newly singled parents in a situation that, quite frankly,
stinks out loud.

Leah




David desJardins

Iowacookiemom wrote:


It made me wonder if all district fund-raising should go into one pot and then
get divided up. But then again, if that happened fundraising overall would
drop off sharply, so that is no answer.

I forget that I am in an extremely small district- 2 elementary schools
and a middle school with a total enrollment of 1,379 students. (High
school is a different district). Our middle school PTO gave a gift of
$17,00 to the school last year. The parents of 1300 students aren't
going to raise millions of dollars.



Marion Baumgarten

In article ,
Marion Baumgarten wrote:
I forget that I am in an extremely small district- 2 elementary schools
and a middle school with a total enrollment of 1,379 students. (High
school is a different district). Our middle school PTO gave a gift of
$17,00 to the school last year. The parents of 1300 students aren't
going to raise millions of dollars.

1379 is a small district! $17,000 for 1379 sounds a bit on the low
side for school fundraising, but if the school is not in desperate
straits, there may not need to be more. The elementary schools around
here very enormously in their fundraising (even within the City of
Santa Cruz). I believe that Westlake, with about 600 students raises
$50,000 to $100,000 a year, most of which goes to fund their art and
music programs. They have also had parents writing grant proposals,
back in the days when the state had any money to give out in grants.
Other schools the same size raise less than a quarter of that. The
difference it makes in the programs between the schools is
substantial, at least if you care about art and music instruction.

The voters of the city have passed some parcel taxes (despite the 2/3
vote needed) to pay for a professional librarian at each school and,
more recently, to keep all 6 elementary schools open. Even the tiny
taxes involved ($81/year per parcel of real estate for the most recent
one) have barely passed. Trying to pass a tax large enough to fund
the schools at an adequate level would be nearly impossible.


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

Noreen Cooper wrote in message ...
chiam margalit wrote:

: And yes, the murals are lovely but....

: *(For those unfamiliar with this area of San Francisco, it is an
: *extremely* gay area and home to a lot of what is known as 'rough
: trade'. We saw our first guy in chaps and nothing on under them but a
: lot of penile piercings in the Mission. Yes, it's an education, but
: I'd bet plenty of parents don't want that kind of education for their
: young and impressionable children. Of course, not everyone who lives
: in the Mission is gay or pierced, but enough are that it could be
: cause for alarm.)

Are we confusing the Castro with the Mission here? Marjorie, I lived 18
years in the City and the Mission district has always been the Hispanic
enclave in San Francisco. Gay people do live in San Francisco in general
and the Mission is a great place for city dwellers to buy cheap
vegetables. But the Mission has never been primarily gay. Never.

Yeah? Tell that to the people marching up and down the streets on
Saturday evenings. I think they'd be surprised. Yes, the Castro is
gay, but so is the mission, and with a different *feel* to it. I spend
plenty of time on the 16th St Hill, and if it isn't one blink from
Christopher St, I don't know what is.

Marjorie

Kevin Karplus wrote:

In article ,
Marion Baumgarten wrote:
I forget that I am in an extremely small district- 2 elementary schools
and a middle school with a total enrollment of 1,379 students. (High
school is a different district). Our middle school PTO gave a gift of
$17,00 to the school last year. The parents of 1300 students aren't
going to raise millions of dollars.

1379 is a small district! $17,000 for 1379 sounds a bit on the low
side for school fundraising, but if the school is not in desperate
straits, there may not need to be more.

They probably raised more but spent some it it- for example our PTO
usually sponsors a speaker for the kids and paid for it. Also that was
for one school. Also we have a separate parent organization that
sponsors the instumental music program- parents are asked to pay about
$150 per year if their child is in band or orchestra and do some
fundraising as well. (We have a separate staff for regular music,
instumental music meets before or after school). Also, we pay high
property taxes- the school collected about 7.3 million in taxes last
fiscal year.

Marion Baumgarten