Bright 2nd grader & school truancy / part-time home-school?

Jenrose wrote:


I was ready for more challenging work. It took until 7th grade to really get
it--I felt like I spun my wheels from 4th through 6th grades because there
was so darn much repetition. Three wasted years. I would have loved to go
into advanced math really young... algebra was fun for me and I adored
calculus--but could not get the school to let me go ahead. It takes me about
1/4 the repetition it takes most people to "get" a math concept--I finally
quit doing homework until the night before a test because it drove me nuts
going over the same things day after day. So I read science fiction books in
class, crammed for the test, and aced it, then promptly forgot what I
learned. I "played the system" and ended up with great grades and *no*
academic discipline.



Sure. I felt the same way as you and also went to college with
absolutely no academic discipline. I knitted during 5th grade math (with
the teacher's permission). That said, I'm probably the *least*
math-capable of my siblings - my sister and brother were and are much
brighter in mathematics. But they went to college with strong study
habits so I'm not sure that the lack of challenging work can be said the
cause of weak study habits.


Jeanne

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article f_Xnb.46659$hp5.28348@fed1read04, Circe says...
"Donna Metler" wrote in message
.. .
And if more than 5% of the parents take this option, every year for the
next three years, the school faces state takeover. Not a good thing.

To the contrary, if more than 5% of parents in most schools begin to
*refuse* to allow their children to be subjected to these absurd tests
that
foolishly waste classroom time and resources (both human and financial),
that rarely reflect the curriculum accurately, and that wind up producing
results that are consistently both misinterpreted and misrepresented, I
strongly suspect that the testing mania will come to an end.

I hear what you're saying (and loathe the tests too - I won't even let
teachers
bring up tests as a reason why my son should do x or y, other than being
rested
and breakfasted on the day of the tests).

I don't loathe *all* tests; I loathe tests that are poorly designed, don't
follow the curriculum, and are scored in misleading ways. I *won't* allow my
children to take tests that don't fairly and accurately measure their
progress.

But of course, on the way to this test-free Nirvana, this nationwide surge
of
High Stakes Civil Disobedience you propose would be disruptive and painful
in
ways that really woudln't help to convince schools to relax their policies
concerning attendance. (Not that something like that shouldn't happen,
but it
doesn't make a reason to take little Johnny to Hawaii).

And I didn't say it was. I don't believe, however, that taking Johnny to
Hawaii is going to have much of an effect on his test scores. Because of the
way the tests are designed (or misdesigned), a week out of school here or
there isn't going to change most kids' score by more than a few points. The
schools bang the stuff that's on these tests into kids over and over all
year long.

If the *reason* it's so bad to take Johnny to Hawaii is that it will affect
his test scores, then you'd have to show a real effect. But I don't think
there's any evidence that a week out of school here or there has a
measurable effect. And if Johnny can stay home for a week with the chicken
pox (he'd be *required* to, I suspect), I don't think being out of school to
go to Hawaii is demonstrably *worse*. Of course, if Johnny spends a week in
Hawaii, a week in Mexico, a week in Europe, and two weeks home with the flu,
then yeah, I don't doubt you'd see an effect. But I just believe the schools
flog and reflog the test material so much that missing even a couple of
weeks of school--whether for illness or for discretionary family
vacations--isn't likely to cause measurable changes in test scores.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Use repeatedly for severe damage." -- Directions on shampoo bottle

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"LFortier" wrote in message
...
cynicism alert

Isn't that the point of NCLB? To have shown all public
schools to be failing, so that there will be a massive
outpouring of support for vouchers and The End Of Public
Schools?

Oh yes, I'm sure it is. I just don't believe that the public will stand for
or believe that it's true.

Despite the hue and cry that public schools in America are horrible, the
vast majority of parents are happy with their public school, even those that
are considered under the standards to be "failing" now. Parents *rarely*
move their kids from neighborhood schools, even when they have the option to
do so, because they pay more attention to their individual child's progress
than to the school's rating and because getting a child to a school outside
the neighborhood is often difficult or even impossible.

NCLB isn't likely to survive in its present form if either a Democratic
President or a Democratic Congress is elected. And regardless of who is in
power, once failing schools are being closed by the federal government and
all of the other schools are either on the verge of being shut down or
overcrowded and unable to accept children transferring from the closed
schools, or both, the uproar from the public will be impossible to ignore
that the fallacy of NCLB quickly recognize.

I actually rather hope the Republicans who think proving that public
education is a disaster are left holding the bag when it backfires.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Use repeatedly for severe damage." -- Directions on shampoo bottle

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Use repeatedly for severe damage." -- Directions on shampoo bottle

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Nikki" wrote in message
...
Jenrose wrote:
our school is
listed on the "bad" list for *one* issue--that our well-educated and
involved parents tend to be very political and flat out refuse to
allow their kids to do the testing.

Heh, good for them!

So we get less than 90% testing
compliance and therefore dinged. It's kind of refreshing, actually.

I've been following the thread but don't have school age kids so I've just
been taking it all in. I'm curious though...how do you guys plan on
handling this long term? My understanding is that if you go x amount of
time without showing improvement then someone comes in and takes over. It
sounds like you have a nice program and I'd want to protect it by not
having
anyone force their way in to mess things up.

Well, I believe that the federal government can't come in and close down a
school if the school doesn't receive federal funds. That would be a big
chunk of change for many schools/districts, but some schools (like mine) get
so little in the way of Title I and other targeted federal funds that they
probably *could* figure out a way to eschew federal dollars altogether if
they were facing being closed down, although it would basically require
going to the parents/community and asking for/getting major donations.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Use repeatedly for severe damage." -- Directions on shampoo bottle

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On 29 Oct 2003 13:41:10 -0800, Banty wrote:

In article , Barbara Bomberger
says...

On 29 Oct 2003 07:45:10 -0800, Banty wrote:

In article , Donna Metler says...



If you want that much flexibility, homeschool. Or find a private school
which caters to parents. Don't ask a public school to do the work of
homeschooling for you so you can take your child anywhere you want to take
them.


Hear-tell private schools get a lot less of that.

Once a parent has paid dearly for the specific setting and paid the teacher for
his or her curriculum and teaching work out of pocket, the whole
vacation/family/play vs. mean-ol'-inflexible-school outlook changes
considerably!

Amazing what use can be made of summer and spring and holiday and other breaks.
Say - Thanksgiving break is coming right up in a scant few weeks! What a
wonderful time to visit a family member who may not be with the world much

Im a little ambivilant about this. We use a department of defense
school. They dont allow unexcused absences. They do however,
consider the opportunity to travel the continent in which we live
(Europe) a valuable education in and of itself. Therefore, we can
take children out with prearrangement, and I have done so.

Yes, one can travel in the summer and school facations, but that
doesnt always work with our parent schedules, or with the crowds. So
I would say I have taken my son out about two weeks in the past year.
It has been well worth it. We do the planned assignments in advance,
and it has never been a probleem.


Having been in schools with only military kids myself (but stateside), I'd wager
that the privelege of pulling kids out for truely imporant reasons hasn't been
abused as much. I don't' take the position that it's *never* appropriate to
take kids out of school.

When I was a kid :utting on my bifocals:: , I remember kids getting off for
an opporunity to see a Saturn V launch, or for truly once-in-a-lifetime travel.
There has to be some flexibility anyway since lots of kids are always
transerring in and out. (One thing, though, families would fit travel around
the transfers often, taking some time off before having to depart or after
having to arrive.)

I dno't recall hardly any of this "hey here's a package for Disney the week
before Thanksgiving let's go" stuff. Or "we have a time-share in Vail for the
last week of January we're gonna do this every year".

Yeah yeah I know I'll get the 'but how can *you* say the skiing isn't as
important as a SaturnV launch!". But hey, this is what you get if willingness
to be flexible is strained by demands of too many folks having no concept of
what is appropriate and what it not. So *everyone* gets cracked down on.

Well ya know what.

If the kid fails, then its the parental problem. BUT, if a kid is
doing well, I see no problem.

I also let my children take mental health days at will, because they
maintain good averages and can keep up. I see no reason to stress out
my kids. If they need a break, or a sleep in day, know what, I give
it to them.

And im with the other Barbara. I have been in school systems all over
the world, and ya know what? They all had the curriculum planned and
the lessons planned plenty ahead, so that giving my child(ren) their
lessons ahead were never a problem.

I already know that my son will be out the three weeks before the
Thanksgiving weekend. HIs sister (who lives in the cayman islands) is
coming for one week, this is the only time she can get off. I have
told the teachers this already, and he will make up his work (probably
ahead of time) I really do not see the problem here.

Life is about life, and school may be part of my kids growing up, but
it is not the only valuable thing.

And yes, I will be the first to take advantage of off season travel
and family time when I think it is valuable. And yes, I think skiing
can be enriching and rewarding as well.

Im the parent, and I plan to remain the one in control.

Barb

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:50:19 -0600, "Vicki"
wrote:




..
"Give us complete control over your children. If you don't like it you can
homeschool" Wow.

Exactly

Barb

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
If the kid fails, then its the parental problem. BUT, if a kid is
doing well, I see no problem.

snip

Life is about life, and school may be part of my kids growing up, but
it is not the only valuable thing.

And yes, I will be the first to take advantage of off season travel
and family time when I think it is valuable. And yes, I think skiing
can be enriching and rewarding as well.

Im the parent, and I plan to remain the one in control.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The bizarre dichotomy I am seeing played out in this thread (and,
interestingly, in the discussion about early dismissal days) is that there
seems to be a strong undercurrent suggesting that *parents* should make
accommodations to the schools on all matters but that schools should not be
expected to make any accommodations for parents. So, parents who have a job
that effectively prevents them from taking vacations while their kids are
out of school during the summer are enjoined vigorously from suggesting that
the school accommodate their *schedules* while at the same time, parents for
whom early dismissal days (particularly irregular ones) are a hardship are
expected to accept the school's scheduling.

When did we reach the point that parents and kids exist to serve to the
school instead of the other way around?
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Use repeatedly for severe damage." -- Directions on shampoo bottle

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article Hqeob.46826$hp5.12953@fed1read04, Circe says...

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
.. .
If the kid fails, then its the parental problem. BUT, if a kid is
doing well, I see no problem.

snip

Life is about life, and school may be part of my kids growing up, but
it is not the only valuable thing.

And yes, I will be the first to take advantage of off season travel
and family time when I think it is valuable. And yes, I think skiing
can be enriching and rewarding as well.

Im the parent, and I plan to remain the one in control.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The bizarre dichotomy I am seeing played out in this thread (and,
interestingly, in the discussion about early dismissal days) is that there
seems to be a strong undercurrent suggesting that *parents* should make
accommodations to the schools on all matters but that schools should not be
expected to make any accommodations for parents. So, parents who have a job
that effectively prevents them from taking vacations while their kids are
out of school during the summer are enjoined vigorously from suggesting that
the school accommodate their *schedules* while at the same time, parents for
whom early dismissal days (particularly irregular ones) are a hardship are
expected to accept the school's scheduling.

When did we reach the point that parents and kids exist to serve to the
school instead of the other way around?

So - you're saying it's not fair - schools are like neighbors or something such
that it's a tit for tat situation with parents? Or, rather, it should be
manifesty unfair in the *other* direction, as you expect that they as *one*
institution should accomodate the childcare needs and vacation dreams for
perhaps hundreds of families?? That's how you view it?

Rewire your synapses around this:

The schools do not exist to 'serve the parents and kids'.
The schools do not exist to 'serve the parents and kids'.
The schools do not exist to 'serve the parents and kids'.

They exist to _educate_ _the_ _kids_

They're not there to be handy-dandy childcare centers. They're not drop-in
drop-out at-your-own pace learning centers.

They have a program. The teachers have curricula. They need to execute with a
lot of efficiency. If you partake of their expert services, you need to
cooperate with their program and curricula. This is a real-world concept here -
the first time most kids are exposed to expectations from the outside world.

And, there are alternatives. To other silliness in this thread - no they are
not a fascist institution. The only state requirement is that you educate your
kids. No one will drag you to a gulag for homeschooling or using an alternative
school.

Banty (and no - I didn't say there should be *no* flexibility - no, I didn't
say a parent *never* has a valid concern - no, I didnt' say schools can lord
over every detail - what I'm saying is -- what the fundamental situation is)

"Banty" wrote in message
...
When did we reach the point that parents and kids exist to serve to the
school instead of the other way around?

So - you're saying it's not fair - schools are like neighbors or something
such
that it's a tit for tat situation with parents? Or, rather, it should be
manifesty unfair in the *other* direction, as you expect that they as
*one*
institution should accomodate the childcare needs and vacation dreams for
perhaps hundreds of families?? That's how you view it?

Nope. Just saying that accommodations and flexibility need to exist in BOTH
directions. Just because I choose to send my child to the school does not
mean I have suddenly transferred all my parental authority to the school.
And if the school cannot avoid creating complications in my life by
instituting things like unpredictable half-day schedules or changes in the
school hours that mean I have to make four trips to drop and pick-up my kids
from school/preschool instead of the two I used to make, I am certainly
willing to be accommodating and even understanding. I merely expect it to be
a two-way street.

And, FWIW, I have not had any problems getting MY school to be reasonably
accommodating and flexible. I don't *try* to take my son out of school
without a good reason or any time I feel like it. For example, my husband
has to take a business trip to Chicago next week. I went to grad school
there, and I would *love* to take my kids there, show them where Mommy used
to live, and take them to the Art Institute, the Field Museum, and the
Museum of Science and Industry. It would be a fantastically educational trip
for them and the fact that our hotel room would be covered by the company
would make it considerably cheaper than we could do it otherwise. But we're
NOT going because I don't feel Julian should miss school, especially since
we've been out one whole week due to the fires already and they'll just be
trying to get back into the groove next week with a bunch of kids who've
basically been on an unplanned vacation and probably won't be too thrilled
about getting back to work.

So it's not like I'm in the position of pulling my kids out of school
whenever the spirit moves me and I'm peeved that I can't. My concern is that
current education reform policy, contrary to its sales pitch, is taking more
and more control away from parents and treating children as though they
exist for the betterment and improvement of the school itself rather than
the *school* treating the children as though they are there to be educated.
IOW, when I'm told that I should let my children take a test to which I
object because the school will be punished if I don't, I'm basically being
told that my children exist to serve the school rather than the school
existing to *educate* my children. And yes, that ruffles my feathers.

Rewire your synapses around this:

The schools do not exist to 'serve the parents and kids'.
The schools do not exist to 'serve the parents and kids'.
The schools do not exist to 'serve the parents and kids'.

They exist to _educate_ _the_ _kids_

And educating kids is a service provided to the kids and, by extension, to
their parents.

They're not there to be handy-dandy childcare centers. They're not
drop-in
drop-out at-your-own pace learning centers.

Agreed on both points. But they are also not prisons wherein children are
sentenced to do time. And since there is a legal requirement in most states
for children to attend school (or else homeschool), it seems entirely
reasonable to me to expect the schools to have predictable hours so that
parents who work (and therefore obviously don't have the option of
homeschooling anyway and are thereby *legally* obligated to send their
children to school) don't have to scramble to make arrangements for
childcare when a minimum day is suddenly announced. If it's fair for the
school to expect parents to ensure that their children are in school at the
required times, it's fair for parents to expect the required times to be
predictable and rarely changed. Again, a two-way street is all I'm
suggesting.

To other silliness in this thread - no they are
not a fascist institution.

Not yet. But when state or federal law effectively takes flexibility away
from an individual teacher of school by mandating that children cannot miss
more than X number of days during the year and the school/teacher does not
have the discretion to permit an absence for a child who is clearly
exceeding academic standards, I think it's getting pretty close.

The only state requirement is that you educate your
kids. No one will drag you to a gulag for homeschooling or using an
alternative
school.

And for most parents, neither homeschooling nor alternative schools (i.e.,
private schools requiring $$$) are realistic options. The fact that there
really *are* so few realistic options for most families is part of why
*some* flexibility is necessary.

Banty (and no - I didn't say there should be *no* flexibility - no, I
didn't
say a parent *never* has a valid concern - no, I didnt' say schools can
lord
over every detail - what I'm saying is -- what the fundamental situation
is)

As I said, my school has been reasonably flexible and accommodating. Nor am
I saying that parents should feel justified at removing kids from school at
each and every whim. By the same token, however, I get a *little* concerned
when a parent's judgment of what's best for her child and family are
dismissed as frivolous and selfish because the school somehow knows better.
I'm also troubled by the assumption that what motivates less flexibility is
that large numbers of people abuse it if it's there. I'm put in mind of
Ronald Reagan's welfare queen, whose high-on-the-hog, taxpayer-funded
lifestyle was supposedly representative of a large proportion of the welfare
population and who later turned out to be fictional. IOW, I don't get the
impression that the number of parents taking their kids out of school for
family trips and the like is significantly greater than in the past; what's
*different* is the degree to which federal and state mandates are wagging
the dog.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Botox ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article c%gob.46853$hp5.4729@fed1read04, Circe says...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
When did we reach the point that parents and kids exist to serve to the
school instead of the other way around?

So - you're saying it's not fair - schools are like neighbors or something
such
that it's a tit for tat situation with parents? Or, rather, it should be
manifesty unfair in the *other* direction, as you expect that they as
*one*
institution should accomodate the childcare needs and vacation dreams for
perhaps hundreds of families?? That's how you view it?

Nope. Just saying that accommodations and flexibility need to exist in BOTH
directions. Just because I choose to send my child to the school does not
mean I have suddenly transferred all my parental authority to the school.
And if the school cannot avoid creating complications in my life by
instituting things like unpredictable half-day schedules or changes in the
school hours that mean I have to make four trips to drop and pick-up my kids
from school/preschool instead of the two I used to make, I am certainly
willing to be accommodating and even understanding. I merely expect it to be
a two-way street.

It can't run the same traffic both ways, though. The school schedules are
pretty much known or unavoidable (like snow days). Individual parents have more
opportunity for flexbility than a school.

My main point here, though, is that the *mission* of the school is rather
straightforward - educating kids. Not facilitating family life - it's educating
kids. Some of the stuff here is about escalating expectations - school happens
to keep kids safe and occupied for x days and y hours a day, so I can work, but
now school should do that for x+a days and Y+b hours a day, so that I can really
work. Those expectations can't be what drives the school - that's not what
they're *for*.

Now, there's opportunities for accomodation, like when our early October extra
"supervisor" day off was finally moved to combine with the Columbus day weekend
to make a four day weekend. That's goodness. But there may be reasons why they
can't do that, and why there needs to be an extra day off like that.


And, FWIW, I have not had any problems getting MY school to be reasonably
accommodating and flexible. I don't *try* to take my son out of school
without a good reason or any time I feel like it. For example, my husband
has to take a business trip to Chicago next week. I went to grad school
there, and I would *love* to take my kids there, show them where Mommy used
to live, and take them to the Art Institute, the Field Museum, and the
Museum of Science and Industry. It would be a fantastically educational trip
for them and the fact that our hotel room would be covered by the company
would make it considerably cheaper than we could do it otherwise. But we're
NOT going because I don't feel Julian should miss school, especially since
we've been out one whole week due to the fires already and they'll just be
trying to get back into the groove next week with a bunch of kids who've
basically been on an unplanned vacation and probably won't be too thrilled
about getting back to work.

So it's not like I'm in the position of pulling my kids out of school
whenever the spirit moves me and I'm peeved that I can't.

OK - so what limit do *you* see? *Should* a girl be able to attend four days
out of five, AND take weeks off in January, AND take extra time off *before*
Thanksgiving to see a relative? Exactly when do *you* start considering some
parents' desires unreasonable? And for how many and which parents?

Banty