Placement testing for charter school. Results: I'm a failure.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I shouldn't have said "didn't exist when I was a kid," I should have said "when/where I was a kid" and I edited my comment.

 

There was always something they would do for a young kid; if the kid could not go home & get food, they would extend credit for a hot lunch, but then there was a debt, and it was not expected to happen regularly. It was not the school's responsibility to finance the kid's lunch.

 

Later there were reduced and free lunches, and they came up with better ways to deal with forgetful kids.

 

I am sure there have always been efforts to charitably feed kids who would otherwise starve. But not generally as part of an established system. In most places, it would not be something a parent would rightfully expect or demand when sending a child to school empty-handed.

 

So I do not consider it "immoral" to establish an optional school that everyone knows at the outset does not provide lunch. The parents who find this unacceptable do not need to choose that school. When I send my kids to a camp that says "bring a sack lunch," I assume my kids will not be fed if we forget the lunch, because I know there is no kitchen at the camp. If I signed them up for a school without a kitchen, it would be the same thing. I would feel badly if my young child went hungry, but it would be on me.

1. The school being discussed is public, not private/optional/elite and has an underserved ESL demographic among the students.

 

2. Nobody said that a school that doesn't serve lunch is immoral. We're talking about *in the moment of lunchtime* some children are eating and some are not -- THAT is immoral. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, if you are like most people who (I hope) would not be able to relish your own dinner while sitting across from a hungry child.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Tibbie Dunbar

[SKL]

1. The school being discussed is public, not private/optional/elite and has an underserved ESL demographic among the students.

 

2. Nobody said that a school that doesn't serve lunch is immoral. We're talking about *in the moment of lunchtime* some children are eating and some are not. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, if you are like most people who (I hope) would not be able to relish your own dinner while sitting across from a hungry child.

 

But the way I read it, kids either paid to eat at the school, or they left to go eat elsewhere.  Sitting at school and watching others eat was not in the plan, but that's how some other poster assumed it would go down.  Do we actually know this happened, just because it is a theoretical possibility?

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by SKL

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I wasn't there, Skl, but that's not how I and others read the description. The posts are still there if you want to check.

[heartlikealion]

Maybe it was part of it, but my friend who attended such a school was a brown-skinned Hispanic girl.  Her parents did not want her bused to a very high-crime neighborhood far away from home.

 

Also, some of those little schools were in black neighborhoods.

 

There are many good things about a neighborhood school.  But, I knew someone would jump on the racism wagon.

 

Well, it's hard to ignore sometimes. Where I live if you google the private schools it straight up says built as segregation academy. I am under the impression you were talking about public schools, though. This area is predominantly black. Oh and I can't forget this story from 2016 regarding one town in my state. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-district-desegregate.html. Ridiculous.

[LucyStoner]

Never mind. This thread should stay about pink mint and encouraging her.m

Edited July 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Scarlett]

In 1957 when my mom was about 12 years old her dad moved the entire family from TX to his birthplace in AR specifically to avoid having to send his kids to school with black kids. So yes there was and probably is a lot of that. However neighborhood or community schools are very important. I would not want my kid bused across town just for integration. For a better education yes. That is one of the reasons I homeschool.....but people didn't have that option in the 50s. And not all do now as evidenced by this thread where Pinkmint is struggling to remain a SAHM so she can homeschool.

[SKL]

Well, it's hard to ignore sometimes. Where I live if you google the private schools it straight up says built as segregation academy. I am under the impression you were talking about public schools, though. This area is predominantly black. Oh and I can't forget this story from 2016 regarding one town in my state. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-district-desegregate.html. Ridiculous.

 

How history is reported doesn't always include all of the facts from when it actually happened.  I'm talking about what was happening around me in the 1970s.

 

I am sure that some of it was inspired by racism, but the fact is that even black and other nonwhite families did not want their six-year-olds bused for hours to go to school every day.  That was a policy that pleased nobody and improved education for nobody.  Keep in mind that in those days, many families (especially low-income families) had no car, or they had one car that was parked at work throughout "school hours."  There was no reasonable access to schools outside of walking distance, and this was completely strange for families who were always used to having that access.

 

ETA sorry to get off topic.  My intent was to affirm that the idea of a "neighborhood school" as a reason for a charter is one that has been implemented in the past.  The idea of charter schools is to address specific concerns that different families have.

Edited July 30, 2016 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The idea of giving kids a free sandwich if they didn't bring their own lunch / lunch money is relatively new and didn't exist when/where I was a kid.  The parents / kids were responsible to make sure lunch was provided.  It was just part of going to school.  You wouldn't send a kid without a shirt or shoes, you don't send a kid without a lunch / lunch money.  When I was in primary school, that meant we slapped together pbj or bologna sandwiches and packed them in a brown bag and remembered to bring them along with our bookbags to school.  If we forgot, there were ways to deal with that - in our case we could walk back home and get the lunch (with consequences so it didn't happen again).  I think the free emergency lunch for kids who forgot was instituted when busing made it impossible for many kids to walk back home for the things they forgot.

 

In the pp that described the no-lunch charter, leaving school to get lunch was an option.  Thus it is on the kids and parents to decide how to make it work; and if you can't, you don't attend that charter school.

 

I don't agree that the school is the institution that has ultimate responsibility to make sure kids' basic needs are met.  Should they have free clothes, and also a sleeping room for kids who didn't get enough sleep last night?  That said, if you're going to make it impossible for kids to get lunch any other way, then you need to make it available at school.

 

When parents can't/won't meet a child's needs. some of us believe it is the responsibility for the rest of us to act like decent human beings and help meet those needs. 

 

[Guest]

How are you feeling, Pink? I've been thinking about you and hoping things are looking brighter after a few days to think on it. :grouphug:

[SKL]

When parents can't/won't meet a child's needs. some of us believe it is the responsibility for the rest of us to act like decent human beings and help meet those needs. 

 

 

"The rest of us" doesn't have to mean the charter school though.

 

I don't know the specifics of the charter school mentioned, but if they want to offer an educational option without also running a kitchen, I think that should be allowed, with parents fully aware before choosing whether to opt in.  The regulations involved in providing food are pretty burdensome.  I don't think they should stand in the way of offering an option that otherwise helps families.

 

In a fix, most people would make sure the kids all have something to eat.  Just because they don't advertise that, it doesn't mean they have starving kids sitting and watching the privileged kids eat.

 

Free lunch is not regularly available to all school kids or in all schools, charter or otherwise.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

"The rest of us" doesn't have to mean the charter school though.

 

I don't know the specifics of the charter school mentioned, but if they want to offer an educational option without also running a kitchen, I think that should be allowed, with parents fully aware before choosing whether to opt in.  The regulations involved in providing food are pretty burdensome.  I don't think they should stand in the way of offering an option that otherwise helps families.

 

In a fix, most people would make sure the kids all have something to eat.  Just because they don't advertise that, it doesn't mean they have starving kids sitting and watching the privileged kids eat.

 

Free lunch is not regularly available to all school kids or in all schools, charter or otherwise.

 

I'm going to join Lucy Stoner in bowing out for pinkmint's sake, but I will leave this thread wondering why you insist on referring to the school in question as an optional charter school instead of the public school that the pps explained it to be.

 

Have a nice day.

[zoobie]

But the way I read it, kids either paid to eat at the school, or they left to go eat elsewhere. Sitting at school and watching others eat was not in the plan, but that's how some other poster assumed it would go down. Do we actually know this happened, just because it is a theoretical possibility?

 

I wasn't there, but it was one of my best friends who stopped volunteering for this PTO program. The children do have the option of leaving school at lunch. The children have to leave with an adult under a certain grade level. She believes the adults are all working or otherwise unable to come to/from school at that time. The school is getting a new principal this year, and it's unclear if she will change the lunch policies. She can't change the fact that there's no school lunch program in that district, but maybe she can figure out a way to get all of the kids fed. This is a regular public school, not a charter.

[zoobie]

The idea of giving kids a free sandwich if they didn't bring their own lunch / lunch money is relatively new and didn't exist when/where I was a kid. The parents / kids were responsible to make sure lunch was provided. It was just part of going to school. You wouldn't send a kid without a shirt or shoes, you don't send a kid without a lunch / lunch money. When I was in primary school, that meant we slapped together pbj or bologna sandwiches and packed them in a brown bag and remembered to bring them along with our bookbags to school. If we forgot, there were ways to deal with that - in our case we could walk back home and get the lunch (with consequences so it didn't happen again). I think the free emergency lunch for kids who forgot was instituted when busing made it impossible for many kids to walk back home for the things they forgot.

 

In the pp that described the no-lunch charter, leaving school to get lunch was an option. Thus it is on the kids and parents to decide how to make it work; and if you can't, you don't attend that charter school.

 

I don't agree that the school is the institution that has ultimate responsibility to make sure kids' basic needs are met. Should they have free clothes, and also a sleeping room for kids who didn't get enough sleep last night? That said, if you're going to make it impossible for kids to get lunch any other way, then you need to make it available at school.

How old are you? Federally funded lunches date back to the 1930s, with the specific program coming about in the 1940s. Before that it was sporadic and usually locally or privately funded.

 

And yes, in a perfect world, everyone can take care of herself, but why do you consistently side against feeding hungry kids? Pre-K threads, this one, others... Life wasn't idyllic when you went to school. There were hungry children whether or not you were cognizant of them. This isn't some newfangled issue the current generation of rapscalians has thought up in order to get fat on the dole.

[SKL]

Well OK, I might have misread as I thought we were talking about charter schools and the tricks they play to "cream skim."

 

I will also cease commenting on the lunch theme as it is irrelevant to the OP's issue.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well OK, I might have misread as I thought we were talking about charter schools and the tricks they play to "cream skim."

 

I will also cease commenting on the lunch theme as it is irrelevant to the OP's issue.

 

 

Some charters do this.  If you are arguing they don't, there is no discussion to be had as that goes against reality.

[pinkmint]

How are you feeling, Pink? I've been thinking about you and hoping things are looking brighter after a few days to think on it. :grouphug:

 

Thank you, AM. I just wanted to chime in again and answer this. 

 

I spent a lot of Saturday morning crying. I was sort of set off by having a bad morning (waking up at 5:30 am to a pounding headache and yelling toddler etc) but I think part of it might have been the fact that I am back to knowing I have to homeschool. For the few days that we had decided to send the kids to a school, and thought we wouldn't have much trouble doing so, (before the reality check) I was starting to feel relief and excitment about having the older 2 out of the house for several hours a day, knowing the weight of their education would be taken off my back and dreaming about having a house that doesn't look like a "Toys r Us inspired crack den" as well as being able to possibly catch up on my sanity. 

 

It's odd because I want to homeschool and think it's best. It's just plain hard. I am not cofident and capable in it, and circumstances are not ideal. 

 

I was encouraged by a comment a couple pages back to come up with a homeschool plan that is realistic. Not a plan that will just give me another thing to fail at, and be discouraged by. Realistic for real, based on my actually situation and abilities. Lots of screen time, for example, may be horrifying to some homeschoolers. It is what it is. I can't hold myself to other people's standards or pretend I have their circumstances/ strengths/ personality etc. 

 

Here's our basic plan: 

 

- Get on medication (for me). I already know which one I'm going to ask for having been on several and I feel hopeful knowing that it's fairly effective with minimal side effects. 

 

- Older 2 kids participate in the local homeschool co-op. 2 hours of class time each kid, one day a week seems reasonable. 

 

- Do any homework from co-op during the week (hopefully minimal) 

 

- 2 days a week of table-work with our set of curriculum

 

- Read aloud and/ or audiobooks

 

- Magic school bus (Netflix) for science

 

- Starfall math

 

- Educational DVDs from the library

Edited July 31, 2016 by pinkmint

[Twigs]

Pink,

Sorry you are having a rough time  :grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug: (believe me, I understand)

Also, good job for coming up with a workable plan. Well done! :hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:

[OneStepAtATime]

Thank you, AM. I just wanted to chime in again and answer this. 

 

I spent a lot of Saturday morning crying. I was sort of set off by having a bad morning (waking up at 5:30 am to a pounding headache and yelling toddler etc) but I think part of it might have been the fact that I am back to knowing I have to homeschool. For the few days that we had decided to send the kids to a school, and thought we wouldn't have much trouble doing so, (before the reality check) I was starting to feel relief and excitment about having the older 2 out of the house for several hours a day, knowing the weight of their education would be taken off my back and dreaming about having a house that doesn't look like a "Toys r Us inspired crack den" as well as being able to possibly catch up on my sanity. 

 

It's odd because I want to homeschool and think it's best. It's just plain hard. I am not cofident and capable in it, and circumstances are not ideal. 

 

I was encouraged by a comment a couple pages back to come up with a homeschool plan that is realistic. Not a plan that will just give me another thing to fail at, and be discouraged by. Realistic for real, based on my actually situation and abilities. Lots of screen time, for example, may be horrifying to some homeschoolers. It is what it is. I can't hold myself to other people's standards or pretend I have their circumstances/ strengths/ personality etc. 

 

Here's our basic plan: 

 

- Get on medication (for me). I already know which one I'm going to ask for having been on several and I feel hopeful knowing that it's fairly effective with minimal side effects. 

 

- Older 2 kids participate in the local homeschool co-op. 2 hours of class time each kid, one day a week seems reasonable. 

 

- Do any homework from co-op during the week (hopefully minimal) 

 

- 2 days of week of table-work with our set of curriculum

 

- Read aloud and/ or audiobooks

 

- Magic school bus (Netflix) for science

 

- Starfall math

 

- Educational DVDs from the library

I think this sounds great.  

 

Now maybe if you are able you could think through your table work and brainstorm specifics that are easy to implement.  With kids the age of yours it won't take long to cover important subjects.  If you plan on doing any worksheets get those and maybe put them in expandable files by week and child.  Pick a reasonable start date for when you think you can have everything pulled together.  Don't over think things but have everything laid out ahead of time.  Build in maybe an hour every Saturday where you look over the next week, make sure you have everything you need or go get what you need so you KNOW you are ready on Monday.

 

Commit to getting the table work completed first thing on the mornings you do table work.

 

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:

[Jaybee]

Re: your plan. Just remember that at their ages, the basics are math and reading/phonics. A few minutes every day is better than a huge chunk, especially at the ages of your kids. And Lego is very educational-- for spatial skills, following directions (if they are using pictorial instructions), developing imagination, and developing fine motor skills. I just don't want you dreading those two days of table work. Over the years, I have become pretty good at streamlining schoolwork to get the most out of our time, without developing complicated systems that may be effective, but not near as efficient. :) 

[mommyoffive]

Your plan sounds awesome!

 

I was just going to ask if there was a co-op near you that you guys could do.  Have you done it before?  I love ours.  It gives me a break, the kids a break from me, and I feel like some of the holes of things I am not teaching can be covered there.

 

I am glad you have that option.  Plus being around other hs moms might be helpful too.  You are right hs is hard.  

 

Do your kids have their own way to listen to audiobooks in their rooms?  I gave my kids cd players at 4 and it was the best toy ever.   My kids all listen to that during nap time if they are not kids who sleep.  I think you need to try and have a nap time everyday.  Your little one needs it.  The older ones can entertain themselves and you need to rest or just have your own time.