Free-range Children

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I went Trick or Treating with friends by ourselves when I was 7. I can't really imagine parents letting their kids do that now, but at the time it didn't seem that big a deal to me. I guess times change.

But with Halloween you have a time and a place where a predator knows he can strike. I can see there being some caution with that.

Other stuff though- I think some of the best times I ever had as a kid were leaving the house on Saturday morning and not coming home until supper time.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

My wife was mad at me because I let our 9 year old daughter and her friend go to get a sno cone by themselves during intermission at a Flames game this year. I wasn't really worried. She has sat in our seats a dozen times. Knows her way around the rink. I thought it was ok. I always tell her to keep her ticket in her pocket so she can show the usher if she gets lost.

I'd sneak around and find better seats

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its kind of a catch-22 though.

We wouldn't have all these alternative schools and emphasis on high achievement, early career tracks and self-serving extra cirricular activities if they weren't so necessary nowadays. Public schools are becoming more and more overcrowded, and the prevailing wisdom is that the quality must be decreasing as a result. Whether it actually is going down is anyone's guess.

Twenty years ago, there wasn't the huge emphasis on education that there is now. There were way more university/college/trade/professional school positions available per capita than there are now. People were able to carve out careers with meagre education without hitting near as many barriers as there are now.

We lament the shortage of teachers, doctors, registered nurses/nurse practitioners, lawyers, accountants, etc, but its harder than ever to get into these positions, regardless of aptitudes (at least this is the case in Canada). In order to get into these programs (to varying extent), one needs to be jam packed with the types of things the original article complains about, as well as have superior grades and a little bit of good fortune. Children are being forced to abandon their childhoods in order to have a chance of reaching their potential.

1. Why are you assuming they are necessary? Is it that they are necessary or is it because parents have deemed that by choosing alternate arrangements for their children, their children will have a better chance of succeeding? So if my child is fluent in another language, if my child has his sporting or artistic aptitudes addressed, if my child is given a more religious focus while being schooled, then they will be better educated and better able to meet the needs of the future?

2. And I stock that up to the fact that 20 years ago, even up to 40 years ago, parents did not feel that "trade" schools, or "college" educations were up to snuff. So they pushed the university is the only option for my child approach and they pushed the option that if my child is exposed to "x" number of things before they reach university entrance age, then my child will have a better chance of actually getting into university. And so now you have the supply and demand scenario. There is more demand for spaces in a university setting than there is supply. The next question then to be asked is, should we just simply create more spaces in the universities? Where does it end?

I will agree however, that since there has been such a focus on getting a university degree, a BA now pretty well equates to what a Grade 12 high school diploma used to.

At one time, it was deemed teachers were qualified to educate and teach students with a 2 year "normal" school program. Now they require a 4 year Bachelor of Education program. Do you think the quality of teaching has gone up substantially? Perhaps teachers now are better able to understand the psyche of their students more, but does requiring more years in a university setting actually make that person a better teacher?

At one time, nurses could actually nurse with 2 years of education in their field too. Now nurses as well require at least 4 years. Again, does that make the person a better nurse? Well maybe if you want those nurses to start assuming some of the doctors' duties so that it frees up time for the doctors to do other things. Or perhaps to dispense more medications.

All I am asking is, at what point do we admit we are overloading our kids?

3. Are children being forced to abandon their childhoods to obtain an education or are parents assuming this is the way for their children to achieve success?

[skippy]

Originally Posted by redforever

All I am asking is, at what point do we admit we are overloading our kids?

This can be a trickle-down effect as we overload our kids because as parents we are overloaded ourselves. For example, I dont know how many times my parents have asked why we do things to our son a certain way and my response is, "There's been so much more research in the last 30 years, it won't hurt him"

This can also relate to putting our kids in this school, that piano teacher, this karate class, that hockey team, etc... Like it was mentioned earlier, this is the information age and we are constantly bombarded with news and some people see those 'child prodigys' doing whatever it is they do and seem to think that their kid can be one too!

So what is enough for our kids? I dont know, maybe I need to do more research. Or maybe I could just get to know my kid and find out what he wants.

[Hack&Lube]

I was overly coddled. Now I am a pathetic mess of a not yet grown up adult.

HAHAHAA!

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by redforever

1. Why are you assuming they are necessary? Is it that they are necessary or is it because parents have deemed that by choosing alternate arrangements for their children, their children will have a better chance of succeeding? So if my child is fluent in another language, if my child has his sporting or artistic aptitudes addressed, if my child is given a more religious focus while being schooled, then they will be better educated and better able to meet the needs of the future?

I personally don't think they are necessary... but somewhere along the line it was determined that the kid who went to school, got straight As, played piano, spoke three languages, went to special classes, and played hockey must be a superior candidate to someone with similar grades, maybe a sport/hobby or two, and a childhood. In Canada, you can kiss most scholarships goodbye if you're not bilingual. As well, universities all ask what people do, aside from school, and logically critique it.

2. And I stock that up to the fact that 20 years ago, even up to 40 years ago, parents did not feel that "trade" schools, or "college" educations were up to snuff. So they pushed the university is the only option for my child approach and they pushed the option that if my child is exposed to "x" number of things before they reach university entrance age, then my child will have a better chance of actually getting into university. And so now you have the supply and demand scenario. There is more demand for spaces in a university setting than there is supply. The next question then to be asked is, should we just simply create more spaces in the universities? Where does it end?

Simply put, yes. Supply and Demand is the single greatest issue right now. When I applied to University, the required average for a BA/BSc program was 73 with a few exceptions (for popular programs). Now its about 80. Are the kids who got in with 73-79% averages suddenly unqualified idiots? Absolutely not. Essentially, the majority of people with decent grades, aptitudes to certain professions, and a desire to succeed can do these degrees. The guy with a 3.9 and a 55th percentile aptitude test mark is not a better candidate than the guy with the 3.3 and the 80th percentile aptitude test mark... both can probably succeed, but many schools would dismiss one or both of them. Governments and Universities are simply getting lazy. Calgary has doubled in population, therefore the amount of professionals needed should have doubled, not to mention the amount of baby boomers ready to retire in the next 15 years. Do we have three times as many seats in Law, Medicine, Nursing, Education and Engineering that we used to? Not even close.

I think it ends when rejection rates for these programs are reduced to people who are actually not qualified (under C average GPA, failed aptitude test, etc), rather than qualified applicants that there simply are no room for.

I will agree however, that since there has been such a focus on getting a university degree, a BA now pretty well equates to what a Grade 12 high school diploma used to.

At one time, it was deemed teachers were qualified to educate and teach students with a 2 year "normal" school program. Now they require a 4 year Bachelor of Education program. Do you think the quality of teaching has gone up substantially? Perhaps teachers now are better able to understand the psyche of their students more, but does requiring more years in a university setting actually make that person a better teacher?

Isn't it six years to be a teacher now? I thought one needed an undergraduate degree, and then could transfer into a 2 year bachelor of education. Maybe there's some shortcuts through. I highly doubt they are better teachers...

At one time, nurses could actually nurse with 2 years of education in their field too. Now nurses as well require at least 4 years. Again, does that make the person a better nurse? Well maybe if you want those nurses to start assuming some of the doctors' duties so that it frees up time for the doctors to do other things. Or perhaps to dispense more medications.

My girlfriend is finishing her 3rd year of a BN, and the first year was total BS fluff. Women's Studies, English, Stats... come on. LPNs are still 2 years, and NAs are 6 months. But now, BNs make more than typical RNs. They plan to phase out the non Bachelor of Nursing RNs apparently. Nurse Practitioners are essentially resident doctors, but that requires a two year master's degree after the initial 4 year BN. So, its essentially 7 years + training for a doctor, or 6 years for a NP to relieve them somewhat. What is wrong with this picture? I don't think they are better nurses (though my gf might argue with me), I think they just get their hands held a lot more, and get a lot of useless fluff.

All I am asking is, at what point do we admit we are overloading our kids?

Good rhetorical question. Some studies are starting to come out that students in general are more stressed out than ever before, yeah, there's those who live the good life as students, but circumstances have become ridiculous.

3. Are children being forced to abandon their childhoods to obtain an education or are parents assuming this is the way for their children to achieve success?

I think its a bit of both. Sad thing is, they're abandoning their childhoods accruing all this fluff (much of it being superficial)before getting tossed onto the roulette board of admissions to do schooling for 4-10 years, and still aren't done their "elite" education until they are pushing 30.

...

[redforever]

Originally Posted by skippy

This can be a trickle-down effect as we overload our kids because as parents we are overloaded ourselves. For example, I dont know how many times my parents have asked why we do things to our son a certain way and my response is, "There's been so much more research in the last 30 years, it won't hurt him"

This can also relate to putting our kids in this school, that piano teacher, this karate class, that hockey team, etc... Like it was mentioned earlier, this is the information age and we are constantly bombarded with news and some people see those 'child prodigys' doing whatever it is they do and seem to think that their kid can be one too!

So what is enough for our kids? I dont know, maybe I need to do more research. Or maybe I could just get to know my kid and find out what he wants.

And sadly, too many times it results in your kids being guinea pigs.

I am a former teacher. I have seen the changes in curriculum. And I was on committees that oversaw some curriculum changes and some of them were basically left field, not even in the ball park. Eg. Modifying the whole junior high math curriculum so that a child coming in mid year from another province or country would not be at a significant disadvantage. How many children did that benefit? Well such a small number that they abandoned the concept within 5 years. In the meantime, your children and my children are guinea pigs in the new program.

Of course, the world is changing, particularily in the maths and sciences, and you have to make sure your curriculum reflects the times. But you also have to realize that most children have to be a chronological age before they can learn some concepts as well. Yes, some children are gifted, perhaps 15% can learn a lot of things earlier than others. But then, is that percentage worth exposing the other 85% to failure at an earlier age? Or is it better to offer that 15% some gifted choices outside of their regular programs. The trick for parents is to recognize that not all of their Johnny's and Jane's fall into that 15% gifted segment.

As a country of course, you want to choose programs that will keep you competitive. You want your workforce to have the proper skills for the times.

But there has to be a balance. Without a balance, stress becomes a huge factor in the lives of everyone. And sadly, right now I see a lot of children never being given the time to relax and just be a kid.

[gordo67]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

My wife was mad at me because I let our 9 year old daughter and her friend go to get a sno cone by themselves during intermission at a Flames game this year. I wasn't really worried. She has sat in our seats a dozen times. Knows her way around the rink. I thought it was ok. I always tell her to keep her ticket in her pocket so she can show the usher if she gets lost.

The Dome is the last place I worry about my kids. We sit in section 202 and my dad has seats in section 227. There have been lots of times my 10 year old and her friends have sat in my dad's seats. When we get into the Dome they are gone and usually we see them after the game. All I tell them is not to run around and annoy other people. She knows the Dome better then most adults. We have been taking her to games since she was in a baby. My son is 6 and he stays with us, he also knows his way around the Dome and knows exactly where we sit. I am not about to let him venture on his own but another 2-3 years and he will be getting me popcorn.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I was overly coddled. Now I am a pathetic mess of a not yet grown up adult.

HAHAHAA!

I think that goes back to your nickname in school that the girls gave you, and not your upbringing.

I mean its gotta be tough going around school being called baby junk.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Isn't it six years to be a teacher now? I thought one needed an undergraduate degree, and then could transfer into a 2 year bachelor of education. Maybe there's some shortcuts through. I highly doubt they are better teachers...

Why do you doubt they are better teachers? A science teacher with a B.Sc and a B.E is going to be a better teacher than someone with a B.E or two years in a "teaching college" type thing, no?

Originally Posted by Thunderball

and the first year was total BS fluff. Women's Studies, English, Stats... come on.

What you refer to as "fluff", others might call "a university education" or even "not fluff".

[redforever]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Why do you doubt they are better teachers? A science teacher with a B.Sc and a B.E is going to be a better teacher than someone with a B.E or two years in a "teaching college" type thing, no?



What you refer to as "fluff", others might call "a university education" or even "not fluff".

Because teaching is not about how much education you have. It is about having the skill to get the concepts you know through to your students.

That skill tends to be more inate than acquired. You of course must have the proper education to know the subject matter you will be teaching. But having the skill to actually "teach" is something else.

But then the general public wants a general standard. That is not just with teaching, it is with any program. And I guess right now that standard says 4+ years of university training and some degree program.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by redforever

You of course must have the proper education to know the subject matter you will be teaching.

Hence the B.A or B.Sc you need to get into education in the first place, I would think.

Originally Posted by redforever

But having the skill to actually "teach" is something else.

Absolutely. You have to be something of a natural to do it right. You can't teach that.

[Kybosh]

My parents always had the philosophy that if something happened to one of their kids they could just make another. I'm partial to that idea.

[redforever]

[quote=RougeUnderoos;1277572]Hence the B.A or B.Sc you need to get into education in the first place, I would think.



Depends on what you are teaching and at what level. You really think you need a B.Sc to teach grade 1 kids math?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Why do you doubt they are better teachers? A science teacher with a B.Sc and a B.E is going to be a better teacher than someone with a B.E or two years in a "teaching college" type thing, no?

But is that Science bachelor teacher teaching science, or english 30? Sometimes they do, and yeah, they'd be a better teacher. Sometimes they are stuck teaching something else.


What you refer to as "fluff", others might call "a university education" or even "not fluff".

Its fluff to a nursing degree and you know it. Its like an engineer taking film studies. Sure, they might like that too, and a degree in it may hold some value, but its has nothing to do with their education and their requirements. I had a lot of fluff in my BA, I liked a lot of it, but it had very little to do with my major, or my second degree.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by fotze

I've never heard stats being accused of as fluff. Think of an actuarian, intense crazy math that companies pay dearly for.

I meant the intro to basic stats that a lot of degrees have tacked on, which they claim will be beneficial in later courses, but is never seen again.

I definitely recognize that an actual math degree is not fluff.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

We wouldn't have all these alternative schools and emphasis on high achievement, early career tracks and self-serving extra cirricular activities if they weren't so necessary nowadays. Public schools are becoming more and more overcrowded, and the prevailing wisdom is that the quality must be decreasing as a result. Whether it actually is going down is anyone's guess.

If someone were to believe that the quality of public education was decreasing (I wouldn't know, I've only been part of the 'delivery' side for 2.5 years) I would point them in a few directions:

1. Pandering to parents and giving in to their wishes above all in every single aspect of the process of educating their child.

OK, I understand that no-one knows your kid better than you do, blah-blah, but let's face it. I'm the teacher. I've gone to University to learn how to do what I do, I'm pretty good at it, I care about what is in the best interests of your child, and whether you want to admit it, I am doing the best I can. A problem is that everyone went to school and has these ideas about it that they think they are as good at it as I am or that they know just as much about it as I do. You don't. I'm sorry. I have to ask permission from parents before I keep their kids after school. Seriously, what is up with that? In the words of Bill Cosby, come on people.

2. Schools don't REALLY fail kids any more.

You heard me right. I think maybe three kids failed (actually held back) in my school last year. In order for a kid to fail a grade, their parents have to agree with it. Shockingly enough, parents seem to think it's more important for their kids to carry on with their social group than actually understand the material they are learning in school. Why? The kid will get over it. A kid is not likely to 'get over' the fact that they don't know how to multiply two numbers together, and no matter what you think, every subject you learn in school is important, whether it's the actual CONTENT learned or the SKILLS. Why are parents given this power to tell a school that they can't decide what happens to their child relating to their schoolwork? Not only is this very concept absurd, it sets up so many kids for failure later in life. Getting a 'failing' grade doesn't matter - why would it? There is no 'failing' any more. A 20% (sorry, 30% per my school's 'minimum grade policy') is the same as a 60% or 75% now. It doesn't matter. Your academic average is 23% (sorry, 30%)? Off to the next grade, who cares if you can't read? What does that teach kids?

3. Students aren't streamed anymore (unless given a parents' permission of course).

My classes are a mishmash of students of so many different ability levels that it's scandalous. I have 35 kids in an 8th grade Science class. Some of them can't read alongside kids who need further extension of the work we do and everything (and I mean everything) in between. How are people not outraged that I have more than one kid in an 8th grade class who can't read? How exactly am I supposed to teach that? I get an Education Assistant SOMETIMES ... but when there are 5 kids she works with ... I still have 30. And she can only work with one at a time. Of course quality of education is going to go down. How could it not? I mean, heaven forbid we embarass poor Johnny or Jenny by putting them in a lower-level class where at least they can learn the things they need to - or - gasp - suggest a program at another school that might be more suited to them, but hey, we've got to ask Mom and Dad first, and they'd rather not embarass the poor kid or - the horror - remove them from their peer group.

4. The money that does go into the educational system is wasted a large amount of the time.

I went to an all-day session about the new Social Studies 9 curriculum coming in next year (replacing the one we currently use - which came in place in 1989 - not a typo). There were 35 of us there, which means there were 35 substitute teachers in schools at a cost of $200 per substitute ... $7000 right there. The two women who 'taught' it probably cost $600 for the day, on top of the lunch and other materials ... the lesson cost us all $8000. At least. And it could have all been done over e-mail. This happens far more than you think. Seven of those sessions easily makes up the salary of one full-time starting teacher.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its fluff to a nursing degree and you know it. Its like an engineer taking film studies. Sure, they might like that too, and a degree in it may hold some value, but its has nothing to do with their education and their requirements. I had a lot of fluff in my BA, I liked a lot of it, but it had very little to do with my major, or my second degree.

It might not have anything to do with nursing requirements, but it definitely has something to do with an education.

All that "fluff" is there for a reason, and it's not just to milk more tuition or sell text books. I'm sure someone can put it more eloquently than this, but you are there to learn how to learn, and learn how to think.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by fotze

Let me guess, the "AISI People" use lots of buzzwords and phrases that don't mean anything. They have lots of ideas but no idea, aptitude or work ethic to enact them.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! See: Assessment FOR Learning vs. Assessment OF Learning; Differentiated Instruction (of course in an Inclusive Classroom Community); Professional Learning Centres vs. Subject Areas ...

[Antithesis]

That's awesome. I'll ask for it to be on the agenda during our next Professional Learning Time, formerly Proessional Day. (more syllables again!)