Jump to content

Menu

Race to Nowhere


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

Lets NOT go there, please.

It is perfectly possible to raise children properly, have strong family ties and good relationships, if both parents work.

(There is a large cultural and socioeconomic component - elsewhere in the world, working mothers are normal. Where I was growing up, almost all mothers worked, mine included.)

 

Equating working mothers with child neglect is highly offensive to me, as to many other mothers who work. (Plus, by extension it is akin to saying single mothers can't possibly be good parents.)

There is no ONE way, and for some families, mom staying at home is NOT the best option.

Edited by LibraryLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm at the point these days that I'm ready to chuck it all and unschool. I really miss the freedom we had when we were doing our own eclectic thing. School wasn't the be all and end all of our day. When life had something interesting to offer' date=' which was more days than not, we made that the focus and got the basics done around that. Now it's all about getting each and every subject covered, assignments done, and to top it all off, get scores that will result in a good grade. It's really hard when you need a 95 in order to get an A. I don't think the school realizes how much stress this causes the students. Why are they doing this? A 94 is a 3.7 and an 85 is a 2.7 - ridiculous IMO. I know from reading here that many colleges recalculate according to a normal 90-A 80-B scale, but not all. And there is no such thing as honors courses or a higher than 4.0 for AP either. So if you get even just one 94, you've blown your chances for a 4.0. Why does that matter? Scholarships. That's what it all seems to boil down to for us. For me, that's where the stress comes from.

 

My dd enjoys most of her subjects, but she also enjoys writing and music and so many other things that are getting less time these days. It's so hard to know what to do. We've already dropped a course we added because it made her school day way too long, but I still don't know what our overall focus should be. I've been going on the idea that it's important for her to have a solid foundation in all the major subjects in high school so she's not limited in any way in college. But these other interests, which are outside the "normal" curriculum, add a lot of joy.

 

I'd love to see this documentary. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.[/quote']

 

I've been thinking hard about this, too. After reading a little on the PSAT thread, I've been thinking about how hard we're all chasing a little bit of money and a lot of recognition with this test. Okay, maybe it's not a little bit of money.;) But it's making us all competitive with each other, or at least the people in our state, because everybody is hoping to have the kid that makes the cutoff.

 

The problem is the cost of college. It's just too high. If we want people to be educated, we need to subsidize it. And in this political climate, nobody wants to do that, even if it's only going to help our economic future.

 

Man, my head is spinning from all the challenging ideas on the board lately. It's hard to know what changes to make. One thing, though, is that I don't think I'll tell anyone if my dd makes the cutoff. I just don't want to add to the competitive pressures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jld I come on here and the focus tends to be rigorous academics, test performance, etc., and then in real life, I've been spending time with a very relaxed unschooling family. After just one semester of a "regular" high school schedule, the unschooling sure looks tempting. :lol: I know there needs to be a balance, and we probably do have that balance - I think I'm just missing the freedom of earlier years. It would also help if I knew what direction my dd wants to go. :tongue_smilie:

 

I thoroughly agree that the problem is that the cost of a higher education is way too high and it doesn't look like this will be changing any time soon. I think that the College Boards is also partly responsible for helping to nurture the testing competition. They even have titles they "award" to students for taking the most AP tests, getting no lower than a certain score, etc.. Bottom line for them is money of course, but in the meantime the kids applying to colleges know that their transcript will pale against others if they don't have the rigorous classes and the GPA well above a 4. Since test scores, GPA and transcripts are the main things used by colleges when awarding scholarships, that won't likely change. I know there are some scholarships for average students who are involved in various activities, or who stand out in non-academic ways, but with the exception of sports, those are much fewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just aiming for the local public branch, which I think takes off a lot of pressure. I understand that many people don't have this option, though. My heart goes out to everybody in this position.

 

I want my kids to get a solid grounding in the basic subjects, so they know when politicians are lying to them!

 

My mind has just really been stretched by the questions that have been brought up on the expectations thread. I haven't thought enough about education in terms of class, race, and gender, and I need to. I don't want to support discrimination in any way. It's a challenge to figure out how traditional ed supports the freeing of the human spirit, and when it stifles it. Such deep questions!

 

I think the whole race to the top idea, trying to get into elite schools, and take all the AP tests, and all that, is not really helpful to our society. A more general policy of trying to lift all learners to reach more of their potential sounds a lot healthier. But America is committed to the first idea, unfortunately. It takes a lot of strength to step out of that.

 

It would be fun to hear what you're learning from the unschooling family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at the point these days that I'm ready to chuck it all and unschool. I really miss the freedom we had when we were doing our own eclectic thing. School wasn't the be all and end all of our day. When life had something interesting to offer' date=' which was more days than not, we made that the focus and got the basics done around that. .[/quote']

 

what I've done with my oldest daughter is to take her love-art-and build a curriculum around that (and I use AO as a spine). When we started school this year it was waaayy too heavy, so I lightened up, then lightened up some more--because she had to have time to draw and paint. You can't put a portfolio together in a week, you know?

 

We're in the medieval era, so she illuminated her initials, we do nature study (CM style) so she has nature studies and drawing every week, she has chem wrapped up in cosmetology and is reading and outlining a book on DNA (she read it once, now she wants to outline it) We're studying Da Vinci for history (art history) and she's doing her maths. We've studied Celtic goldsmithing and she's planning a huge Celtic design for another art project. She's reading HenryV (she loves acting so Shakespeare is a bonus-she was making her way through all of his plays anyway) and as a history spine, Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking People V1. We're reading one life per term from Plutarch, this term is Caesar, and tying his 'campaigning' and the current campaigns in for current affairs. ;) She is in Henle Latin, year 1, she's going to be taking Portuguese and is reading The Canturbury Tales over the whole term.

 

It sounds like a lot, but it's not because she reads a bit each day. She's had time to paint storefront windows, see plays and paint as much as her heart desires. Things are totally different for my 11 yo science geek.

 

Finding your own balance is the hardest thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We are one of those families who couldn't "afford" the pressures or the prices of private education.

 

My boys go to private school but it's not highly selective and, in the scheme of things, not very pushy. It's results are good but not top flight. They send about 10% of their students to Oxbridge.

 

The only way for the boys to go to a really pushy school would be for them to board. As that is not an option for our family (unless our views change radically) my innate pushiness is kept within bounds.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perfectly possible to raise children properly, have strong family ties and good relationships, if both parents work.

 

While I agree that it is possible, I do not think that it is "probable". Lots of people simply do not have the emotional resources.

 

regentrude, I have to respond because I think your blanket statement is almost as bad as mine. :001_smile:

 

Even now I don't really have time to properly construct this argument and am not that versed in persuasive argument. But for the sake of "our", in the collective sense, children, I feel I must answer.

 

The blanket concept that two parents working is no problem reminds me of the 70's when "research had shown that children of divorced parents were just fine".

 

I think society loses out greatly when people cannot have an ideal that is striven for.

 

I was trying to speak to the ideal of children being cared for by people who really love them, rather than by the TV, the Internet, the babysitter who has her boyfriend on the other end of the line or on the couch, etc.

 

I should have made allowance for single mothers who are making it. But probably they would not consider their situation the "ideal" and would like to have another adult in the picture to help deal with the myriad of situations in the life of a parent.

 

And then there are people who are in such a financial quandary that indeed they do have to have both parents employed full time in order to put food on the table.

 

And yes, there are individuals who have super-organizational capacities and energy that can somehow work it all in.

 

But that does not make those situations "ideal".

 

I tend to think that the children who make it successfully emotionally and are then able to be good parents, had other loving adults in the picture. (To me, that is the measure of real success - whether you can bring up your own offspring well).

 

There are lots of variables in the equation. And then people in special or unusual circumstances seem to get special strength to deal with the circumstances.

 

When you talk about other places in the world, you forget to mention grandparents and relatives in the picture. To just cross-culturally

try to presume that therefore it is the same in the US, is somewhat idealistic. In the US, families are easily far from loving grandparents and some communities are so transient that there is not the possibility of building up real emotional ties. Whereas in many parts of the world, the grandparents are quite involved in the care of the grandchildren and even though the parents are working, there is someone there to listen to the problems of the day, give moral guidance, and just "be there".

 

First I'm talking about both parents working "full" time. Yet I do not mean to imply that women should be sitting at home twiddling their thumbs. Who wants to return to the 70's where the women were at home sitting in front of soap operas all afternoon? Hardly a good use of women's time and energy and strengths.

 

But growing up in Eastern Germany, I do not imagine that you know of the importance that women have had in volunteering in the community in the US and parts of Europe in the past. (Now that does not deal with the lack of recognition and appreciation for their time and effort - but that is a completely separate issue). Different societies operate in quite different ways to meet the needs of the people, though sometimes those needs are not met effectively. Yet as more and more women are working full time (including homeschooling full time which is certainly "work"), there are less people filling in the volunteer gaps which they filled because of a passion for something. (I'm not trying to say homeschoolers should stop homeschooling to volunteer as they are meeting needs of people they are directly responsible for).

 

It is not really possible to deal with all the variables in a brief discussion like this. I just do have to disagree with you though, because I think there are millions of children suffering from neglect. And to try to push those situations under the rug and ignore them, is dangerous for society.

 

Over here teachers are quitting because they are unable to "educate" the children. They say, this is supposed to be done at home. That is a difficult translation because their use of the term means "moral" education. I remember when I first went to the local principle and told him that I wanted to home educate my son. He said, "but education is supposed to be done at home". And what he meant is that children are supposed to be taught how to behave in society at home. When the parents do not teach this because they are so busy working and putting food on the table, the society becomes more and more "uneducated" in a sense.

 

Sorry KarenAnne, for the sidetrack!

Joan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole race to the top idea, trying to get into elite schools, and take all the AP tests, and all that, is not really helpful to our society.

 

The thing about AP tests that I don't totally get is that when I went to college, I wanted a four year college "education." I didn't want a piece of paper that said I passed some AP tests and took a few classes. The whole AP thing just confuses me. I guess I'm easily confused.

 

I'm sure a lot of it is how expensive college has become. But really, I would want to work a few years and raise the money to have a "college education" if I wanted to go to college, I think. My son wanted that, and even re-took calculus which he could have gotten out of (took calculus in high school and at community college). He wanted the whole 4-year "education package." Guess we're weird.

 

 

 

And about the working thing, I think it should be clarified further that you are talking about full-time day jobs, so the kids are only with their parents an hour or two between work and bedtime. Because some of us made it work in much different ways. I worked the 4-midnight shift for most of my 17 years with the VA, and before that worked out of my home for 3 years. We felt we needed two jobs, as my dh didn't have a cushy job (didn't graduate high school) and didn't have a job with decent health insurance. But my kids were still raised by their parents.

 

Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about AP tests that I don't totally get is that when I went to college, I wanted a four year college "education." I didn't want a piece of paper that said I passed some AP tests and took a few classes. The whole AP thing just confuses me. I guess I'm easily confused.

 

I'm sure a lot of it is how expensive college has become. But really, I would want to work a few years and raise the money to have a "college education" if I wanted to go to college, I think. My son wanted that, and even re-took calculus which he could have gotten out of (took calculus in high school and at community college). He wanted the whole 4-year "education package." Guess we're weird.

 

Julie

 

We're not planning on AP, either. I want dd to do labs in college, and be a part of discussions. And I'm pretty obviously confused about AP tests, too; just ask Luann!:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that it is possible, I do not think that it is "probable". Lots of people simply do not have the emotional resources.

 

But that does not make those situations "ideal".

I think it is impossible to speak about what is "ideal" for another family.

I stayed home with my children for several years. I was miserable, developed clinical depression and had no patience for my children. When I returned to work, I regained balance, overcame my depression and could be a better, more loving mother to my children. They are definitely better off with me working than with me being at home.

 

First I'm talking about both parents working "full" time.

... Yet as more and more women are working full time (including homeschooling full time which is certainly "work"), there are less people filling in the volunteer gaps which they filled because of a passion for something.

I only work 25-30 hours a week (btw, in a job that I do because I have a passion for it); the rest of my "work" consists in homeschooling my children. Does that count as full time? Or do the few hours less magically move me into your "acceptable parent" category- and a few more hours would move me to "bad parent"?

Why would you consider it more valuable if I volunteered rather than worked?

 

I think there are millions of children suffering from neglect. And to try to push those situations under the rug and ignore them, is dangerous for society.

Agreed. And in many cases, often the most horrific ones, the neglect happens despite the fact that one (or sometimes even both parents) are at home and not working.

 

And what he meant is that children are supposed to be taught how to behave in society at home. When the parents do not teach this because they are so busy working and putting food on the table, the society becomes more and more "uneducated" in a sense.

I do not like your underlying presumption that parents who work can not teach their children these things. Almost all my female friends back home work - yet their children ARE well adjusted, well mannered, responsible, educated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that it is possible, I do not think that it is "probable". Lots of people simply do not have the emotional resources.

 

regentrude, I have to respond because I think your blanket statement is almost as bad as mine. :001_smile:

 

Even now I don't really have time to properly construct this argument and am not that versed in persuasive argument. But for the sake of "our", in the collective sense, children, I feel I must answer.

 

The blanket concept that two parents working is no problem reminds me of the 70's when "research had shown that children of divorced parents were just fine".

 

I think society loses out greatly when people cannot have an ideal that is striven for.

 

I was trying to speak to the ideal of children being cared for by people who really love them, rather than by the TV, the Internet, the babysitter who has her boyfriend on the other end of the line or on the couch, etc.

 

I should have made allowance for single mothers who are making it. But probably they would not consider their situation the "ideal" and would like to have another adult in the picture to help deal with the myriad of situations in the life of a parent.

 

And then there are people who are in such a financial quandary that indeed they do have to have both parents employed full time in order to put food on the table.

 

And yes, there are individuals who have super-organizational capacities and energy that can somehow work it all in.

 

But that does not make those situations "ideal".

 

I tend to think that the children who make it successfully emotionally and are then able to be good parents, had other loving adults in the picture. (To me, that is the measure of real success - whether you can bring up your own offspring well).

 

There are lots of variables in the equation. And then people in special or unusual circumstances seem to get special strength to deal with the circumstances.

 

When you talk about other places in the world, you forget to mention grandparents and relatives in the picture. To just cross-culturally

try to presume that therefore it is the same in the US, is somewhat idealistic. In the US, families are easily far from loving grandparents and some communities are so transient that there is not the possibility of building up real emotional ties. Whereas in many parts of the world, the grandparents are quite involved in the care of the grandchildren and even though the parents are working, there is someone there to listen to the problems of the day, give moral guidance, and just "be there".

 

First I'm talking about both parents working "full" time. Yet I do not mean to imply that women should be sitting at home twiddling their thumbs. Who wants to return to the 70's where the women were at home sitting in front of soap operas all afternoon? Hardly a good use of women's time and energy and strengths.

 

But growing up in Eastern Germany, I do not imagine that you know of the importance that women have had in volunteering in the community in the US and parts of Europe in the past. (Now that does not deal with the lack of recognition and appreciation for their time and effort - but that is a completely separate issue). Different societies operate in quite different ways to meet the needs of the people, though sometimes those needs are not met effectively. Yet as more and more women are working full time (including homeschooling full time which is certainly "work"), there are less people filling in the volunteer gaps which they filled because of a passion for something. (I'm not trying to say homeschoolers should stop homeschooling to volunteer as they are meeting needs of people they are directly responsible for).

 

It is not really possible to deal with all the variables in a brief discussion like this. I just do have to disagree with you though, because I think there are millions of children suffering from neglect. And to try to push those situations under the rug and ignore them, is dangerous for society.

 

Over here teachers are quitting because they are unable to "educate" the children. They say, this is supposed to be done at home. That is a difficult translation because their use of the term means "moral" education. I remember when I first went to the local principle and told him that I wanted to home educate my son. He said, "but education is supposed to be done at home". And what he meant is that children are supposed to be taught how to behave in society at home. When the parents do not teach this because they are so busy working and putting food on the table, the society becomes more and more "uneducated" in a sense.

 

Sorry KarenAnne, for the sidetrack!

Joan

 

 

I'm going to agree with you. Perhaps it 'is' possible to have 2 working parents and have a wonderful family----but my family didn't turn out that way and really neither did anyone else I grew up with having 2 working parents! I'm sure there were/are exceptions----but I never saw it. The HUGE difference is, like you say, perhaps extended family around. Like my cousins had 2 working parents out of necessity----BUT they DID have extended family around. A LOT of it. And to this day it has made ALL the difference in the world. My parents moved away from all extended family and did their own thing.

 

The CHILDREN of these working families, who felt neglected and really were inadvertently neglected, need to be asked "Did it work?". Because my answer is "NO!". My brothers and I were the Latchkey Kids---as were the rest of the kids in our neighborhood and we got in lots of trouble. We were SOOO envious of the kids who had a mom home to greet them, feed them a proper snack after school, help them with homework etc. My experience growing up is THE #1 reason I stay home with my kids and have since the day our daughter was born. Homeschooling wasn't even originally in the cards. But being there for my kids----that was and still is so incredibly important. It's even more important to be there for them as they have gotten older. And I also agree that children of divorce....are generally NOT okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last thought about this - and then I feel I should be leaving this discussion because it really makes upsets me.

If, as several of you say, a working mother can not raise her kids properly, do you also believe that everybody who sends their kids to a school is a bad parent who can not possibly have strong family ties and raise responsible, well mannered children? Because between the time the kid leaves for school and gets home (at least in the US), a parent can fit in almost a whole workday (mom being home during those hours does not do the kid any good.) If you continue this though, it would mean that only homeschooling parents can be good parents.

If this is the prevailing attitude here, I think this is not the place I want to hang out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last thought about this - and then I feel I should be leaving this discussion because it really makes upsets me.

If, as several of you say, a working mother can not raise her kids properly, do you also believe that everybody who sends their kids to a school is a bad parent who can not possibly have strong family ties and raise responsible, well mannered children? Because between the time the kid leaves for school and gets home (at least in the US), a parent can fit in almost a whole workday (mom being home during those hours does not do the kid any good.) If you continue this though, it would mean that only homeschooling parents can be good parents.

If this is the prevailing attitude here, I think this is not the place I want to hang out.

 

Well, this isn't my point at all. If my mother had been home when we got home from school, things would have been VERY different ;) I don't personally believe everyone should or can homeschool. It's a great way to educate kids, and a great way to create a close family---but not for everyone. If my kids were in school, I would more than likely work during the hours they were in school to be home when they got home. Please don't get the impression that I am denigrating ANY working mother because of my experience and I am certainly not suggesting that it's NOT possible to raise kids properly as a working mother. There is working and then there is 'working'----and my experience was that my mother's nursing job was more important than her mothering job. And I saw a lot of this in my friends' families too. But then again, these were the working women of the '70's and '80's who felt it was an embarrassment to be 'just' a stay at home mom---even if they didn't need the $$. And I assure you that the prevailing attitude here is NOT against working mother's at all---LOTS of mom's work here. I personally just have a problem with the attitude that there is no value in mothering or staying home or that stay at home mom's don't 'really' work. I do think it takes a lot of balancing and awareness, though, to make sure kids of a dual working parent household don't feel like second best to a job/career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as several of you say, a working mother can not raise her kids properly, do you also believe that everybody who sends their kids to a school is a bad parent who can not possibly have strong family ties and raise responsible, well mannered children? Because between the time the kid leaves for school and gets home (at least in the US), a parent can fit in almost a whole workday (mom being home during those hours does not do the kid any good.)

 

I don't think I would be in that category, but I do think you're mistaken.

 

My oldest was fully public schooled and my middle I pulled out after 9th, youngest after 2nd, so I've been there.

 

Public schooling is not the same as working 9-5. You are there in the morning as they get ready for school, you are there when they return home at 2:30 or 3:30, you are there if something changes (school canceled, sick, etc), vacations of course, and you are available to go on field trips or help in class (I sometimes had a baby in a sling, but I could be there).

 

Now, I know parents who both work full time days (including family members whom I love) and make most of these things happen. But I surely wish one of the parents was able to be home during the day, even if they public school :(

 

Julie

Edited by Julie in MN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public schooling is not the same as working 9-5. You are there in the morning as they get ready for school, you are there when they return home at 2:30 or 3:30, you are there if something changes (school canceled, sick, etc), and you are available to go on field trips or help in class (I sometimes had a baby in a sling, but I could be there).

 

Now, I know parents who both work full time (including family members whom I love) and make most of these things happen. But I surely wish one of the parents was able to be home during the day, even if they public school :(

Julie

 

Been there, done that. My kids attended school till 5th/6th grade.

We would get up together, have family breakfast together (our big family meal, since DH does not get home till 7pm), walk to school together, I'd go to work and meet them at 3:30 at home. That would leave me seven hours (I said almost a full workday)

Snow days and school cancellations are difficult and have to be worked around, I agree - but that is a logistic problem. I did not say it was a piece of cake.

Now I admit, I have not the slightest inclination to chaperone a school field trip... do I need to have that in order to be a good parent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regentrude, don't go away. Our commonality on this board is "homeschooling" not whether or not we agree on every issue of each others' lives. Maybe you think that I should be working outside the house, but that is not going to keep me off the boards. We have to be able to have freedom of expression without feeling personally threatened by diverse opinions.

 

I think it is impossible to speak about what is "ideal" for another family.

 

In one sense "yes", but in another sense "no".

 

I think we do all need "real love".

 

It is hard in a brief discussion to mention all the permutations that can work to make a person become an emotionally healthy and responsible adult who knows how to love and care for his/her spouse and children. It also seems to take a couple of generations of society-wide neglect for the effects to be really obvious in a society-wide way.

 

I stayed home with my children for several years. I was miserable, developed clinical depression and had no patience for my children. When I returned to work, I regained balance, overcame my depression and could be a better, more loving mother to my children. They are definitely better off with me working than with me being at home.

 

I think it is hard to extrapolate to the whole of society because of your situation. Though I know there are other women like you, I think that there is a greater majority of children who would be better off with their mother at home. So it is for them that I am speaking.

 

I only work 25-30 hours a week (btw, in a job that I do because I have a passion for it); the rest of my "work" consists in homeschooling my children. Does that count as full time?

 

First, I did not mean to insinuate that all working women do not have a passion for their job. Though I do not think that women in McD or cleaning offices, etc, have the same passion that you have for their work.

 

Let's see....who is taking care of your children while you are working? Your question is hard to answer because I do not know all the details of your life and how much time you have for your children, and in that time, how you take care of them as a mother. Maybe your husband contributes a lot. Maybe you can hire people to do shopping, etc, so that you have more time with your children. It is also the priority. There are women who stay at home, but their priority is not their household but themselves. And then I have also seen that children of immigrant parents have a different mentality in some way and it is not until the next generation that there is a breakdown.

 

Or do the few hours less magically move me into your "acceptable parent" category- and a few more hours would move me to "bad parent"?

 

Remember that my concern is that children are taken care of by people who love them. I'm not dissecting your life, just the general social movement away from children being cared for by their parents (or people who love them).

 

Why would you consider it more valuable if I volunteered rather than worked?

 

I think you are taking this too personally. I'm pretty sure that you make useful contributions to society in the job you have, as you make useful comments in the posts that you make. I do not consider you more or less "valuable" because of being paid vs volunteering.

 

What I do think is that when children are in school full time (so they do not get parental contact there) and the parents are both working full time in a way that they do not get much contact (as Julie pointed out- schedules can be juggled) with people that love them, they don't feel loved as much as they should and are not supervised as they should be in the case of "latchkey" kids.

 

When one of the parents is volunteering, they tend to not be volunteering "full time", they have time to take off if the child is sick, they tend to organize their day to be home when the children are home, etc.

 

I was "valuing" volunteer time for the community in that the needs of needy (in some sense) people are met by these women (typically, though of course there are lots of men too) volunteering. When the mom is working part-time, then she has extra hours to do the household management (this is all based on school-going children's lifestyle). Anyway, the contribution of these volunteers has been quite great in the past and added to society in a way which was not usually taken into account. And many times these volunteers were actually managing activities for the children of working women.

 

Agreed. And in many cases, often the most horrific ones, the neglect happens despite the fact that one (or sometimes even both parents) are at home and not working.

 

Please show me the statistics, not just allude to anecdotes of child abuse. (Though the type of statistics I am asking for would be hard to find as the type of suffering to which I am referring is not often made into statistics. As 4wildberry said "The CHILDREN of these working families, who felt neglected and really were inadvertently neglected, need to be asked "Did it work?". I cannot remember reading of such a study).

 

I do not like your underlying presumption that parents who work cannot teach their children these things. Almost all my female friends back home work - yet their children ARE well adjusted, well mannered, responsible, educated.

 

Well regentrude, I do not really know the Eastern part of Germany well at all, nor all the social conditions that work there towards contributing to children growing up to be healthy well-adjusted parents. I do know in the US, (when I last heard these statistics anyway), that the majority of babies conceived to teenagers out of wedlock were conceived between the hours of 3-6 pm (when the parents were out of the home). How old are the children of your friends? And maybe your friends are well-educated and can pass on this education in an efficient way and there is a social structure that holds them in, in a sense.

 

Remember that my main point is that I am trying to talk about the children who are suffering due to the lack of loving care.

 

About Denmark, my only experience was with my husband's boss who moved from Denmark to Switzerland so that his wife would not have to work so that she could take care of their children. She said it was not working up there. Now that their children are grown, they have moved back.

 

About the homeschooling is the only way question, I do not think that homeschooling is possible for everyone. But about your question about the hours while a child is at school, if both parents are working full time during that time and don't get finished til 6 then have to do the shopping, cooking, bills, laundry, and on and on, there are not really enough hours in the day. When the child sees the need (due to true financial problems ie not self-made ones such as we need more TV's, cars, etc) then they feel like they can help in some way. But if they are just pushed aside in the race to nowhere with fancy toys to distract them, then I don't think they feel loved.

 

Joan

Edited by Joan in Geneva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been there, done that. My kids attended school till 5th/6th grade.

We would get up together, have family breakfast together (our big family meal, since DH does not get home till 7pm), walk to school together, I'd go to work and meet them at 3:30 at home. That would leave me seven hours (I said almost a full workday)

Snow days and school cancellations are difficult and have to be worked around, I agree - but that is a logistic problem. I did not say it was a piece of cake.

Now I admit, I have not the slightest inclination to chaperone a school field trip... do I need to have that in order to be a good parent?

 

I'm not saying you're a bad parent. I'm not saying my family members who do this are bad parents. And I even have a few friends who work a lot and I think are better parents that way. Maybe you're one of those moms, sorry if I missed something. Plus a few single moms I know just feel they must, even one who works 2 jobs & used to do a 3rd on weekends. But for most of the children in my life, I wish a parent was home more for them, even in the older years -- my grandfather used to tell me to work while the kids were little and be home when they were teens :) I may not totally agree with him, but I see what he was saying. I mean, none of us are perfect parents, but I think a parent at home all day is an "asset" for kids.

 

By the way, I'm surprised you can squeak in 7 hours. Do you work at home or very nearby? My kids' school day was only about 6.5 hours, and they were never all in the same school, so the actual time when all children were out of the house was shortened. And if I had to drive to work and park and such, it would have left me a max of 5 hours plus lunch, possibly less, and that's assuming I could work whatever hours I chose. Plus I would have to be getting ready for work when the kids were getting ready. I did that a bit over the years and was really stressed, especially when one of the kids would spill on my work clothes etc. :tongue_smilie: Maybe I'm just easily flustered ?!

 

Julie

Edited by Julie in MN
clarify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regentrude, this topic is one of the most divisive in our society. The New York Times Motherlode blog has a couple of topics that are inevitably enormous triggers for hot remarks and beliefs that one way is best, and the issue of working women vs. women who stay at home full time is one of the very biggest and most explosive.

 

I'm frustrated and saddened by that, because the last thing in the world women need is to divide up and criticize one another's choices or proclaim that one way is the best way and anyone else who operates differently is ______ (fill in the blank: neglectful, anything else you can imagine). It's just ridiculous.

 

Please don't think that all or even most women on the boards line up on one side. They don't. All kinds of variations exist and work wonderfully well for the families and the kids. For the inevitable personal comment, I wish I could work at part-time, because living full-time at home with an Aspie child is difficult and isolating, and I think it would do both of us good to have our own lives outside of one another. Dd has to some extent: she has a job in stables, like your dd. This has been the best thing for her in the world. I am trying to write a book, but it's an uphill battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regentrude, don't go away. Our commonality on this board is "homeschooling" not whether or not we agree on every issue of each others' lives.

But about your question about the hours while a child is at school, if both parents are working full time during that time and don't get finished til 6 then have to do the shopping, cooking, bills, laundry, and on and on, there are not really enough hours in the day. When the child sees the need (due to true financial problems ie not self-made ones such as we need more TV's, cars, etc) then they feel like they can help in some way. But if they are just pushed aside in the race to nowhere with fancy toys to distract them, then I don't think they feel loved.

 

Joan

:iagree:

 

And don't forget unexpected illness, accidents at school and other such unforeseen problems that tend to pop up----too many of these and a mom will be let go by a boss who doesn't need an 'unreliable' worker not dedicated to her job. Happened to my mom---too many calls by us kids at home, especially during all vacations and time off school. As a kid, there is nothing worse than being sick or in pain at school and having to stay there because your parents are working. Or having literally nothing to do but chores during vacations because your parents are working. I tried to keep working at home when we first started homeschooling, but soon found that giving both 100% was impossible for me. Some women are much more dynamic and have what it takes to really multitask in these situations, so obviously there are always exceptions to any situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... with a non-working parent I think of a woman I know: she has a terrible effect on her children, despite her good intentions. It is much better for her children that she work hard to pay for their school fees, and that they spend their days away from her. Despite having chosen to stay home with my children, I don't think that there is one perfect prescription for all families.

 

Laura

Edited by Laura Corin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regentrude, this topic is one of the most divisive in our society. The New York Times Motherlode blog has a couple of topics that are inevitably enormous triggers for hot remarks and beliefs that one way is best, and the issue of working women vs. women who stay at home full time is one of the very biggest and most explosive.

 

I'm frustrated and saddened by that, because the last thing in the world women need is to divide up and criticize one another's choices or proclaim that one way is the best way and anyone else who operates differently is ______ (fill in the blank: neglectful, anything else you can imagine). It's just ridiculous.

 

Please don't think that all or even most women on the boards line up on one side. They don't. All kinds of variations exist and work wonderfully well for the families and the kids. For the inevitable personal comment, I wish I could work at part-time, because living full-time at home with an Aspie child is difficult and isolating, and I think it would do both of us good to have our own lives outside of one another. Dd has to some extent: she has a job in stables, like your dd. This has been the best thing for her in the world. I am trying to write a book, but it's an uphill battle.

 

:iagree: I think it is possible to for both working parents and those with a stay home parent to parent well. Also, many families do not have the choice at all to have a stay home parent due to finances even when they are living frugally. Lastly, I think when we think of mothers about 150 years ago or more, I bet they were pretty busy all day working at home and not spending a lot of time with their children so to speak. I could be wrong but I imagine this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know in the US, (when I last heard these statistics anyway), that the majority of babies conceived to teenagers out of wedlock were conceived between the hours of 3-6 pm (when the parents were out of the home).

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita

The teenage pregnancy rate in the US is more than four times as high (per capita) as in Germany, where the children spend much larger portions of the day unsupervised, even if mothers stay home- because the kids are getting themselves to and from school (beginning in elementary), and to extracurricular activities and friends in the afternoon. They walk, bike, take public transportation - their non-working mothers do not accompany them. They would have plenty of opportunity because teenagers usually do not sit at home with mom in the afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? It's a conversation that should be had, and I think it's gone very well so far.

 

People are saying that a mother shouldn't work or she is a bad parent and you think it's a conversation that should be had and it's going well?

 

0_o

 

 

Seriously?

 

You realize that this board--the book that started this forum, is written by a working mother? Why don't all of the mothers get guns, stand in a big circle facing inward and shoot? Because that's what conversations like this do.

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita

The teenage pregnancy rate in the US is more than four times as high (per capita) as in Germany, where the children spend much larger portions of the day unsupervised, even if mothers stay home- because the kids are getting themselves to and from school (beginning in elementary), and to extracurricular activities and friends in the afternoon. They walk, bike, take public transportation - their non-working mothers do not accompany them. They would have plenty of opportunity because teenagers usually do not sit at home with mom in the afternoon.

 

Regentrude, so would you say that the culture of Germany as a whole is more what Americans are now calling "free range" in most aspects? My recollection of the two years I lived in (then) West Germany would bear this out, but obviously it was a relatively short period a relatively long time ago. I tend to think that one of the problems America has is that children are not given enough freedom and responsibility; do you have an opinion? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regentrude, so would you say that the culture of Germany as a whole is more what Americans are now calling "free range" in most aspects? My recollection of the two years I lived in (then) West Germany would bear this out, but obviously it was a relatively short period a relatively long time ago.

 

Let me preface this by saying that I am going to answer this question by just sharing my experience. I do not wish to start yet another OT debate. If somebody thinks that all German parents are bad and irresponsible: you are welcome to your opinion; I have no wish to argue.

OK, Caitlin:

Compared to what I am used to from back home, American children seem overprotected.

I understand that American cities are not very conducive to children walking themselves to school - but even those who could won't, because parents don't think they can expect that from their kids. Which, in turn, creates a vicious cycle: since almost no kids walk, the few ones who do are singled out and less safe, plus motorists are less aware of walking children and less alert (do not get me started on the many people who do not stop for pedestriants at crosswalks in front of the school - the majority of those being mothers who are just dropping their kids off at school.)

 

In contrast, a German schoolchild will be accompanied by parents for the first few days of first grade only - unless the traffic situation is unusually bad. As of 5th grade, most children will use public transportation across the city to reach their schools, and to participate in afternoon activities which are usually not affiliated with school (sports, music lessons etc)

In 4th grade, bicycle ed is a mandatory part of the curriculum; it culminates in a practical exam, administered by local police, after which the kids receive a "license" to ride bicycles in traffic on streets. Many use it as a mode of transportation and not just as a toy. Of course, local traffic situations may not allow this everywhere - but children are judged responsible and mature enough to do this.

 

In Germany, the idea that school age children need to be constantly supervised is an alien one. When my son attended a German elementary school, he was surprised to see that the kids were on their own during in-door recess in the classroom and were allowed to eat, and that they were allowed to walk down the hall to the bathroom without the teacher leading the whole class there (something I always found ridiculous in the school here - joint potty breaks in 5th grade!)

This extends to children being at home. Parents would not want to leave an elementary school age alone at home from noon till 6pm - those kids would go to aftercare - but most parents would be OK with elementary school kids being home by themselves for an hour. There is no law prohibiting this.

Four year olds walk to the corner store to get bread.

 

I tend to think that one of the problems America has is that children are not given enough freedom and responsibility; do you have an opinion?

I don't have an opinion about this. I regret it that my kids have less independence growing up here and always need a parent to chauffeur them somewhere (DD is thrilled every year when we are home and she can just hop in the bus and meet with friends at the movies etc).

But I am not attempting an interpretation of American problems in the light of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regentrude, vielen dank. I appreciate your taking the time to elaborate on your and your children's experiences. I spent many, many hours walking around in and playing in the woods near my house in Germany--alone!--when I was 6-8 years old--an idea which would appall my current group of friends.:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this applies to what you are saying or not, regentrude, but my dd15 commented recently that she thinks that too much parental, I don't know if she would call it supervision (I will ask), makes teenagers (she specifically spoke of teens, but I will ask her again) less responsible and mature. She thinks they need to do more on their own, and that they need to have more collaborative relationships with the adults in their lives.

 

You know, I really should talk with her more about this idea, because I thought it was really interesting to hear that coming from a teen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my dd15 commented recently that she thinks that too much parental, I don't know if she would call it supervision (I will ask), makes teenagers (she specifically spoke of teens, but I will ask her again) less responsible and mature. She thinks they need to do more on their own, and that they need to have more collaborative relationships with the adults in their lives.

 

I completely agree. That's why, for instance, I love it that DD goes out to the barn so much -without me. She has to interact with the adult stable owner and farm helpers, the young women and older girls (college and highschool students) who board horses there. Now granted, I have been observing her riding lessons for a few years and know that the trainer is very strict about safety, and know the girls who drive are responsible drivers and it is safe to let DD ride with them. But I don't check up what she does for all those hours - it is her thing, and I have noticed her grow in maturity and responsibility.

It is a sum of many things, many very small and simple like being able to go into town and buy her own dinner when they are planning to spend the night - no mom there who tells her what to get, etc.

(I have noticed that kids here have virtually no possibility to shop on their own. Back home, on the way back from school, kids will stop at the bakery or supermarket- here they can't get there unless somebody drives.)

 

I also notice that DD is behaving in a more mature way if I treat her more like an adult. That is, of course, not always possible - but the more I show that I respect her choices and wishes and let her make independent decisions, the easier it is for us to reach a consensus -or, for instance, for her to accept if I do not allow a certain activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that American cities are not very conducive to children walking themselves to school - but even those who could won't, because parents don't think they can expect that from their kids. Which, in turn, creates a vicious cycle: since almost no kids walk, the few ones who do are singled out and less safe, plus motorists are less aware of walking children and less alert (do not get me started on the many people who do not stop for pedestriants at crosswalks in front of the school - the majority of those being mothers who are just dropping their kids off at school.)

I find your description of Germany most interesting. I often wonder whether smaller countries afford more freedoms and more trust. I wonder if that factors in at all?

 

In our area (Minnesota), kids K-5 get bussed if they are over 1 mile from school, and 6-12 must be 2 miles away in order to get a schoolbus. Many of my son's friends choose to go to school out-of-district, so they are only bussed to the edge of the other district and must walk from there, probably more than 2 miles, or get rides from older siblings who drive. So kids here are often walking a mile or two on their own. Of course, many parents do drive their children (whether eligible for bus or not), especially when it's really cold, but I wouldn't say the majority by any means. I think this is increasing a bit, because my dd had a nanny job and the mother wanted her to drive the kids (rather than walk with them) and they lived TWO BLOCKS away!!! :banghead: Oh, and you can pay $300 in order to bus a child who is not eligible.

 

But anyways, I think in the midwest there is more independence of kids than you describe. My ds is 15, but he has been walking to various stores and fast food joints with his friends for at least 3 years, and I know of kids allowed to do this much younger. But age 4? My grandson is 4 and is a very slow talker, but I can't imagine him making a purchase. Isn't that the age when they think that three one-dollar-bills are better than one five-dollar-bill?!

 

In Germany, the idea that school age children need to be constantly supervised is an alien one. When my son attended a German elementary school, he was surprised to see that the kids were on their own during in-door recess in the classroom and were allowed to eat, and that they were allowed to walk down the hall to the bathroom without the teacher leading the whole class there (something I always found ridiculous in the school here - joint potty breaks in 5th grade!)

I think one big factor in all of this has nothing to do with supervision but has to do with the fact that in America, EVERY child has a right to be in that school, even the ones who goof around and damage things and hurt other kids. My youngest was very stressed out in kindergarten and we found out it was because one child bit, kicked, and hit anyone and everyone. Supervision is necessary when school is not a privilege but a right.

 

This extends to children being at home. Parents would not want to leave an elementary school age alone at home from noon till 6pm - those kids would go to aftercare - but most parents would be OK with elementary school kids being home by themselves for an hour. There is no law prohibiting this.

Four year olds walk to the corner store to get bread.

 

I don't have an opinion about this. I regret it that my kids have less independence growing up here and always need a parent to chauffeur them somewhere (DD is thrilled every year when we are home and she can just hop in the bus and meet with friends at the movies etc).

But I am not attempting an interpretation of American problems in the light of this.

In our state, there aren't really specific laws about when children may be left alone. One of my oldest's friends was consistently left alone at age 5 after he came home from Kindergarten. From noon to 5:00, he wandered the streets, and child protection would tell the parents he must be in daycare, but that would last a day. Nothing really was done.

 

Loosely, the guidelines are to investigate:

1. Reports of children 7 and under left alone for any period of time

2. Reports of children ages 8 and 9 who are alone for more than 2 hours

3. Reports of children 10 through 13 alone for more than 12 hours

4. Reports indicating that children 14 to 17 are unsupervised while parents are absent for more than 24 hours will be screened, considering adequate adult back-up supervision.

 

 

I think the concern of the community is all the reports we hear of children being stopped by child molesters and such. Do you feel there is less of this in Germany?

 

Just an interesting opportunity to discuss,

Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this applies to what you are saying or not, regentrude, but my dd15 commented recently that she thinks that too much parental, I don't know if she would call it supervision (I will ask), makes teenagers (she specifically spoke of teens, but I will ask her again) less responsible and mature. She thinks they need to do more on their own, and that they need to have more collaborative relationships with the adults in their lives.

 

You know, I really should talk with her more about this idea, because I thought it was really interesting to hear that coming from a teen.

 

 

A great book on this exact thing is THE CASE AGAINST ADOLESCENCE--but it looks like he expanded it and renamed it. I have the older version.

 

http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=29

 

Excellent, excellent book.

 

here's an older article

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200703/trashing-teens

 

 

 

Myself-I'm a firm believer in free ranging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this applies to what you are saying or not, regentrude, but my dd15 commented recently that she thinks that too much parental, I don't know if she would call it supervision (I will ask), makes teenagers (she specifically spoke of teens, but I will ask her again) less responsible and mature. She thinks they need to do more on their own, and that they need to have more collaborative relationships with the adults in their lives.

 

Most of the folks who have told me that I shelter my kids too much ended up with kids who were in prison or fighting addictions and such. Not to mean that it can't happen to everyone, but I've not listened to those who told me kids need more freedom. If a kid can't handle freedom at 18, I don't see how it would help if they had more freedom at 12. I think more supervision and training, not less, is what helps kids handle independence well, although I agree that the supervision shouldn't be mom all the time. And I think freedom should happen as the child demonstrates readiness, not according to age.

 

Now, I suppose I should balance this by saying that in some ways, I give a lot of freedom. My oldest used to say I was the only mom who could be told when he was toilet papering a neighborhood house (I expressed my opinion, including the fact that the police might be called, but didn't forbid, only requiring that I know where he was at all times), but wouldn't let him drive until he was 17. I choose my battles. But by age 17, my oldest was almost completely independent, my middle dd was not even halfway ready to handle independence at 17, and my youngest may be ready at 16.

 

Sorry if your dd's comment struck a nerve because of all the folks in our extended family who told me that in the past, but I hope I have explained some other ways of looking at "freedom," too.

Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the folks who have told me that I shelter my kids too much ended up with kids who were in prison or fighting addictions and such.

Julie

 

I've had the exact opposite experience. The child that I was very protective of, that I helicoptered, became the one that has broken my heart. My others? I give them long reigns and they are amazing. Darned near perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, it's always good to share your own experience. We learn from all the different experiences on the board. Sometimes our thoughts are challenged, and we grow from the exchange. I certainly have on the expectations thread!

 

I'll call dd today and ask her to clarify what she meant. I'm pretty sure she mentioned homeschooling moms sheltering too much, and just in general controlling their kids too much. She even mentioned, if I'm not mistaken, that she thinks kids should do more of their own teaching, instead of having their moms do it. She thinks it leads to more ownership of one's own education.

 

On the tp . . . I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing my kids were doing something like that and not stopping them, or at least expressing my discomfort. I think I would ask them if they were planning to go and clean up the mess after they had done it. To me, that's just treating other people the way we want to be treated, which is something I talk a lot to the other kids about. But you are an experienced mom of grown children, so you must have reasons for seeing this differently than I do.

 

Thanks again for sharing your experience and viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ohmy:

it's tongue in cheek-kinda. They're caring, thinking, sweet, empathetic and so mature. I couldn't ask for better children. I don't have to beg them to work, they help happily, they do schoolwork happily *shrug*. I call that darned near perfect. But, like I said, the way I parent them and the way I parented the first are 180 degrees different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are saying that a mother shouldn't work or she is a bad parent and you think it's a conversation that should be had and it's going well?

 

I think you didn't read my (or others) posts carefully.

 

That you point to SWB actually proves that you did not get my main point, because her husband is quite involved in homeschooling while she is busy writing.

 

My point is that children should be cared for by people who love them, not left alone at home unsupervised on a regular basis (which I highly doubt that SWB's are - at least from their schedule it does not seem true).

 

I'm even thinking of taking a part-time job myself in the future due to high expenses, but my husband would be here when I am not. (If I was closer to home, it might be my mom or a sister.)

 

At that point though, I don't know what my 90 yo neighbor will do as she is somewhat dependent on me (and my husband's cooking). I will note that we have been filling in for her children and grandchildren who are/were working outside the home.

 

Regentrude, I think your post is interesting but not really pertinent...it is a little harder to do intimate activities on public transport or on the street or in a music class. It tends to occur in the parent-less home in the US, though not always. Many American teens have their own cars which have been called "mobile bedrooms". I don't think nearly as many German teens have their own cars - or am I misinformed? and isn't a parent normally at home when the children are?

 

It is hard to compare Europe to the US. Here public transport can be much, much better. (it is hard to serve suburbs in the US where the density is quite low). My children go unsupervised on the bus or bike even as young as 8 yo, but they have a purpose and these activities are not more than 5 mi away. They are not just hanging out. It is regular, purposeless, unsupervised time where children can get into trouble.

 

As for "controlling" homeschool mothers, I think the movement is still so new and is still a big experiment in one sense, and it will take awhile for healthy habits to be established and people to get an idea of what works best for their situation. (Note that I didn't say "one best", but there are better and worse ways of doing anything otherwise society would be perfect already. :001_smile: People can pass on info about how to homeschool without too much controlling, but it all takes experiences that are shared with others. I know people who are dissatisfied with how they did it and they need to share their stories). But thankfully there are all these Americans willing to experiment which has enabled Europeans who want to do the same to have someone to point to when people question them and we learn from their successes and failures. (Not that it is always accepted as a response).

 

As for hovering vs nonhovering, in reality those words can mean different things for different people, so it is hard to assume that what you mean as nonhovering is the same as what other people mean. And certainly there are unsupervised children who have gotten themselves into lots of trouble. I was part of a rescue operation for one of them whose parents were doing hi-level work and abandoning their offspring who ended up in a depression not going to school anymore but his parents didn't even know it. Soooo, we could go around and around...

 

Joan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As for "controlling" homeschool mothers, I think the movement is still so new and is still a big experiment in one sense, and it will take awhile for healthy habits to be established and people to get an idea of what works best for their situation. (Note that I didn't say "one best", but there are better and worse ways of doing anything otherwise society would be perfect already. :001_smile: People can pass on info about how to homeschool without too much controlling, but it all takes experiences that are shared with others. I know people who are dissatisfied with how they did it and they need to share their stories). But thankfully there are all these Americans willing to experiment which has enabled Europeans who want to do the same to have someone to point to when people question them and we learn from their successes and failures. (Not that it is always accepted as a response).

 

As for hovering vs nonhovering, in reality those words can mean different things for different people, so it is hard to assume that what you mean as nonhovering is the same as what other people mean. And certainly there are unsupervised children who have gotten themselves into lots of trouble. I was part of a rescue operation for one of them whose parents were doing hi-level work and abandoning their offspring who ended up in a depression not going to school anymore but his parents didn't even know it. Soooo, we could go around and around...

 

Joan

 

 

I've had a busy day today, running to electronics stores, and I haven't been able to call my dd yet, to get clarification. In the meantime, I just want to say that anything she may think is just her opinion, nothing more. I may well qualify for her definition of controlling, lol! I'll have to ask.

 

Joan, I think you're right, that Europeans are really lucky to have Americans to learn from about homeschooling. We have been asked about our experience, and while most Europeans think we are strange:D, a few have expressed some interest in it.

 

As far as the supervision . . . this probably is indeed dependent upon each family. Maybe I am just incredibly naive, but I have almost absolute trust in my daughter. I say almost, because I know she is bossy with her brothers, and doesn't always treat them the way she would like to be treated, but in general, she has been a tremendous blessing to her parents and brothers. I just can't imagine her getting into trouble, especially now, at 15, when she is mature enough to know the risks of following peers too closely. And she has goals in life, goals that she is highly motivated to achieve. I trust that other mothers know their kids well, and know just what level of trust to have in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to stay out of these conversations because they are nothing but trouble but I made the mistake of reading the thread. Offensive doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

Children need real love. That love can be provided by family and it can be provided by paid care providers. Parents who care make the effort and normally succeed in surrounding themselves with people who will love and care for their children when they are not around.

 

I see the problems with the youth of today as a lack of parenting. I see the same rude behavior in children with a stay at home parent and children without one. I see the same rude behaviors in homeschooled children and in public schooled children. People don't parent. They are busy being their kids friend. They are busy with other interests. They just don't care. They think "Boys will be boys" so their awful behavior is to be expected and there is nothing I can do about it so I will ignore it. Whether or not both parents work outside the home is not the crux of the matter. That is just a smoke and mirrors tactic designed to remove focus from the real issue by flaming emotions. Parents need to parent. Period. Unfortunately, many don't know how. This is the education that is needed.

 

As for the original topic-the race to nowhere. It is a very real race. I see it all around me. I struggle against getting caught up in it. My dh is in it and this does cause the occasional conflict between us as we discuss the upcoming high school years. My personal opinion is years from now people will study the public school system and decide that the final nail in the coffin of what was once a great institution will be the No Child Left Behind Act. The people in charge now are the ones who grew up with it. They do not know anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kewb,

 

Amen and Amen! Parents need to actually parent in a proactive way instead of a reactive, ooooh I want to be my child's friend so I haven't developed a plan and now all I want to do is survive my kid, way. It's got nothing to do with who went to work, who didn't, etc.

 

No Child Left Behind was one of the most dangerous pieces of federal education twaddle that has ever come down the pike. What this generation, living through it, will be like educationally and then as parents, is anybody's to guess, but I'm pretty certain it won't be good! So the race to no place has more entrants than at any other time in the nation's history.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are saying that a mother shouldn't work or she is a bad parent and you think it's a conversation that should be had and it's going well?

 

0_o

 

 

Seriously?

 

You realize that this board--the book that started this forum, is written by a working mother? Why don't all of the mothers get guns, stand in a big circle facing inward and shoot? Because that's what conversations like this do.

 

Who said mother's 'shouldn't' work or they are bad parents if they do? My main point was based on my own experiences. My own mother is not a bad parent and to this day I would never relate to her just how damaging her job focus over us was. But it certainly shaped my goals of what I wouldn't do and I have taken plenty of flack for it. When I first started homeschooling, I was questioned heavily 'Why??' by some younger women who proudly stated they can't wait for vacations to be over because their kids drive them crazy and they LOVE their 'free daycare' public school and their 'careers':001_huh: I didn't say a word back, because I have found stay at home mothering is still a denigrated choice in our society. I guess I have to watch my opinions here too, even though I didn't think I was saying anything offensive. I was just stating the truth of my life experiences and how it has shaped my goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:Regarding No Child Left Behind. ("When everybody's special, nobody is.") (don't read that literally)

 

RE: SWB- she and her dh share homeschooling responsibilities and her mom and dad live on the same property and have been involved as well. I would love such a close, supportive community to raise my kids in.

 

Of course working moms can raise rock-out kids. But I think it's almost impossible to do so alone. When I worked f.t. I was trashed. Working, the commute, the demands of the house, etc. I was fried.

 

Of course homescooling moms can raise rock-out kids. Imho, 2 are better than one and it sure helps me when my dh can step in, when we are part of a like-minded, supportive, intelligent community (we LOVE you Caitilin!). When it's just me, home alone, day after day, I really struggle. I would love to figure out a way to work p.t., homeschool my kids, etc. The vocational part of me longs for that! It doesn't have to be an either-or as so many have affirmed.

 

Re: training our kids with academic rigor and vocational skills- ayup. We've gotten into specialization so much that we've forgotten that people really are capable of knowing and doing lots of different things. My dh (smart guy-3 grad degrees) sheetrocked the basement this summer and is finishing the house re-build. What we haven't know ahead of time, he has found and (like laying tile in the bathrooms). Part of intelligence, imho, is being able to resource yourself. That's one of the problems with "The race." The kids get so focused on outcomes that they are not developing as people, not learning how to resource themselves beyond the next bar. As a result, again mho, when they don't "finish" the race well, or hit a road bump, they are devasted- life becomes meaningless.

 

Free-range. I lived in L.A. when my 2 oldest were little. NO way were they free range kids. Kids were being kidnapped at eled schools ("helicopter kidnappings"), road rage was prevelant, we had police, with weapons drawn, run through our neigborhoods, one of our neighbor girls was almost pulled into a perps car, etc. Now my kids spend hours alone- my 16 ranges far and wide. I think it really depends on the situation.

 

Smother mothers- well, lots of our relatives think I smother just by the fact that my kids haven't gone to p.s. to really "learn how to deal with bullies." (like we need to, had a true blue one bruising my 10 yo at co-op weekly a couple of years ago). There is a difference between smothering and intentionality. Intentional parenting probably looks really controlling to those who assume others will take care of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said mother's 'shouldn't' work or they are bad parents if they do? My main point was based on my own experiences. My own mother is not a bad parent and to this day I would never relate to her just how damaging her job focus over us was. But it certainly shaped my goals of what I wouldn't do and I have taken plenty of flack for it. When I first started homeschooling, I was questioned heavily 'Why??' by some younger women who proudly stated they can't wait for vacations to be over because their kids drive them crazy and they LOVE their 'free daycare' public school and their 'careers':001_huh: I didn't say a word back, because I have found stay at home mothering is still a denigrated choice in our society. I guess I have to watch my opinions here too, even though I didn't think I was saying anything offensive. I was just stating the truth of my life experiences and how it has shaped my goals.

 

 

It's okay, 4wildberrys. Your experience is your own and to be respected. I'm glad you're giving your kids what you missed. It is a great gift to them. :)

 

How can we find a way to validate what everyone's life has taught them? How can this be a safe place to seek to understand and to be understood? We're a caring group of moms; I know we want each other to feel respected and appreciated. How can we do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How can we find a way to validate what everyone's life has taught them? How can this be a safe place to seek to understand and to be understood? We're a caring group of moms; I know we want each other to feel respected and appreciated. How can we do this?

 

 

But I don't see anyone as being 'invalidated' for their choices here :confused: The working mother vs. non-working mother is most definitely a Hot Button issue----but I haven't seen it turn nasty or accusatory or denigrating in this particular thread.

 

And LL---I am going to read your LA experience to my dd!!!! She is so scarred from being raised in this horrid little town, she really thinks she would LOVE LA :001_huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...