Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I have seen this trend out there myself. It is very unfortunate as far as I am concerned. There is a difference between "don't let scary stranger out of the bush tell you what to do" and "don't let the teacher tell you what to do".
The teacher ALWAYS tells you what to do you and should ALWAYS listen what the teacher has to say.
But what you wrote here reflects exactly what I wrote in my original post.
I don't think I've ever disputed that there are parents who foster a sense of disdain for rules and expectations, when it comes to school. And it's not just uneducated parents in low-income areas who resent educated professionals attempting to teach their kids, either. I've seen emails from parents, before, reaming teachers out over daring to assign projects, when little Madison and McKenzie are soooooo stretched thin between gymnastics and youth soccer and mini-cheerleading camp and the family's vacation to Disneyworld planned stragetically for during the school year instead of over the summer.
It's definitely true that there are many parents who refuse to present a united front with educators regarding their children's education. But the question is, what can educators possibly do about this? If you don't have any luck getting the students to view your policies as necessary, and it's because their parents don't, how are you supposed to have any luck with the parents?
I don't think I've ever disputed that there are parents who foster a sense of disdain for rules and expectations, when it comes to school. And it's not just uneducated parents in low-income areas who resent educated professionals attempting to teach their kids, either. I've seen emails from parents, before, reaming teachers out over daring to assign projects, when little Madison and McKenzie are soooooo stretched thin between gymnastics and youth soccer and mini-cheerleading camp and the family's vacation to Disneyworld planned stragetically for during the school year instead of over the summer.
It's definitely true that there are many parents who refuse to present a united front with educators regarding their children's education. But the question is, what can educators possibly do about this? If you don't have any luck getting the students to view your policies as necessary, and it's because their parents don't, how are you supposed to have any luck with the parents?
Educators themselves can do little about it; that was the ultimate essence of my OP.
Unless some sort of cultural revolution happens (like the one in the 60's did, only in reverse) then I am afraid educators are out of luck.
I wouldn't say that athletic activities have no redeeming value, or that they don't play a role in development important for succeeding in a classroom either, though, although I did not choose to participate in them. Activities that don't have a straight-up academic focus still do allow for the development of skills that can be critical in succeeding in school.
They may - but only up to a tiny weenie point. When you take tons of time away from academics to reserve for sports, games and practice - then I don't care how sports can INDIRECTLY contribute to better academic performance. At that point you already place the child in a position where he puts too little time on those activities that have DIRECT, not indirect, impact on academic performance.
Such as working on core subjects.
Who is going to do better academically? A child who dutifully get his homework out of the way so he can focus on what he's REALLY passionate about (his baseball games) or a child who dutifully does his homework and then adds to that 20 more advanced level math problems so he can truly excel?
See the Asian model - this is exactly what they do...and then we wonder about their superior scores. Or if you want to argue against the "oppressive", Tiger-Mom Asian model, you can look at the old European way (not sure what those guys do there nowadays but I know what they used to). When you read a lot for pleasure in your free time (that was very big in my generation) guess how your reading comprehension scores and your vocabulary are going to be ?
Without anyone teaching to the standardized test for you...!
My point is that the extra-curricular activities are severely over-rated in this culture, just like justnice suggested. The best they can do is to keep the kids away from video games, drugs or other temptations - but isn't this a bar set way too low? This is nothing a good set of healthy house rules cannot solve.
After all...who forces those parents to buy all those video games for the kids? Or give them access to video games? Or even worse...drugs?
It seems pretty clear that poverty affects home environment, and that home environment is a major factor in academic success. When people are broke, they don't always have the resources (time-wise, money-wise, energy-wise, whatever) to do the most effective parenting, and it's highly likely that academic achievement suffers in many cases where this is occurring.
You will get your success stories of kids in abject poverty who beat the odds...and there's a reason that these stories get press...because they're vastly the exception, rather than the rule. Economics are ABSOLUTELY a significant predictor of academic success. Less money equals diminished opportunity, all around.
Absolutely agree on this as I fully expect family poverty to make a complete mess of a child's life, overall. However, I was not talking about American children in poverty.
I was talking about your average kid at your average school (heck even at your high-end public school), with your average "respectable" 'burb parents.
Not everyone is a "group activity" kind of individual but virtually all children should be expected to get to a point where they read for pleasure.
Group activities can be extremely tiresome for many children and they leave no room for self-reflection or any other TRULY enriching and personal moments.
Totally agree, in that I am assuredly not a "group activity" individual (probably plays a large role in my lack of interest in team sports, and why I tended to avoid group work when possible, and still do). But the reality is that as an adult, I am required to work well within a team construct nearly constantly, so developing those skills was actually very important, though not my favorite to have to learn, or my typical choice of things to do for pleasure.
Reading for pleasure, on the other hand, was never something I had to learn, at least not consciously. I learned that I loved it by being constantly read to, from pre-birth on, and eventually learning to read myself by listening and reading along with. My parents presented reading as wonderful, delightful, and fun from even before day one, and so, it was and is fun. I would definitely consider reading for fun an extracurricular. In elementary school, nothing was more fun to me than the book fairs, the RIF days where everyone got to pick out a free book, Scholastic book orders, etc. I even remember being in a "special" reading group in fourth grade for the most advanced readers, and we had a book club over lunchtime where once a week or so, we got to eat our lunches in the classroom with the teacher, who we loved (fun and a privilege!) and even were okay with missing our lunch recess that day to do our reading club.
Absolutely agree on this as I fully expect family poverty to make a complete mess of a child's life, overall. However, I was not talking about American children in poverty.
I was talking about your average kid at your average school (heck even at your high-end public school), with your average "respectable" 'burb parents.
That was in response to another poster's contribution, but it does bear saying that the "average" kid actually IS more and more likely to be living in a family in economic dire straits. Inner city, rural, small town, burbs...more kids and more families are facing the ramifications of unemployment, home foreclosure, etc. It's not just ghetto and Appalachia anymore.
They may - but only up to a tiny weenie point. When you take tons of time away from academics to reserve for sports, games and practice - then I don't care how sports can INDIRECTLY contribute to better academic performance. At that point you already place the child in a position where he puts too little time on those activities that have DIRECT, not indirect, impact on academic performance.
Such as working on core subjects.
Who is going to do better academically? A child who dutifully get his homework out of the way so he can focus on what he's REALLY passionate about (his baseball games) or a child who dutifully does his homework and then adds to that 20 more advanced level math problems so he can truly excel?
I think this discounts the kids who love both, the athlete scholars, who learn to balance BECAUSE they have a high drive for both. My brother, the one who coaches baseball at a selective private college these days, was absolutely as passionate about his GPA as he was his batting average. It's an oversimplification to posit that students can only be passionate about one thing if they participate in many. Students who excel often excel all around. And there is also grade-related eligibility, at any rate, for the less motivated athletes.
Truly, though I easily spent as much time at play practices and band, choir, and color guard rehearsals than my brothers did at baseball and basketball, if not more, and it did require the hard-to-learn skill of prioritizing my time appropriately, just as it did for my brothers.
Overall, I don't agree at all that exposure to as many extracurriculars as possible is a negative at all, in this culture or any other. Richer childhood sets the stage for richer lives. I've known people, from my own culture and others, who had no interests apart from their academic courseloads. They aren't very interesting people, and didn't support very mutually fulfilling friendships. I can't knock life-enriching activities or exposure to them from early on. The don't have to occur to the detriment of learning; on the contrary, when executed well, they foster learning and allow young people time to apply those learned skills. Learning is functional as well as academic.
I think this discounts the kids who love both, the athlete scholars, who learn to balance BECAUSE they have a high drive for both. My brother, the one who coaches baseball at a selective private college these days, was absolutely as passionate about his GPA as he was his batting average. It's an oversimplification to posit that students can only be passionate about one thing if they participate in many. Students who excel often excel all around. And there is also grade-related eligibility, at any rate, for the less motivated athletes.
Truly, though I easily spent as much time at play practices and band, choir, and color guard rehearsals than my brothers did at baseball and basketball, if not more, and it did require the hard-to-learn skill of prioritizing my time appropriately, just as it did for my brothers.
Overall, I don't agree at all that exposure to as many extracurriculars as possible is a negative at all, in this culture or any other. Richer childhood sets the stage for richer lives. I've known people, from my own culture and others, who had no interests apart from their academic courseloads. They aren't very interesting people, and didn't support very mutually fulfilling friendships. I can't knock life-enriching activities or exposure to them from early on. The don't have to occur to the detriment of learning; on the contrary, when executed well, they foster learning and allow young people time to apply those learned skills. Learning is functional as well as academic.
It depends on the sport too. My high school cross country team had an average GPA of 3.75. On my college cross country team, we all graduated in the 10% of our respective classes. I still keep in contact with my team mates and coaches. I have yet to meet one member of the cross country team who was not an academic, and most of my teammates both college and high school are quite successful people. Same with people in band and orchestra, I haven't met too many people who played in my high school band or orchestra, that finished with at least a 3.25 GPA, and most of my bandmates/orchestra-mates went on to college and are successful at their jobs.
Maybe it's the type of people who do these endeavors that make the difference, but I can't completely dismiss that these extra-curriculars hinder education.
I understand your point of view - but I still think it is scary and sad that we have to raise our children in this bee-hive, regimented manner or else. We have become a Spartan and vacuous society at the same time.
To give you an example, the first thing I expect my son to do do when he comes back from school is rest in his room. Not homework, not extra-curriculum, nothing. He has an hour or so of down time in which he can choose to read and sleep, or both and that's about that. If you count reading for pleasure as extra-curriculum, then OK.
Otherwise, he has no access to anything else during that time. His room has a bed, a desk and book-shelves, no toys. The fact that kids no longer have some unstructured time in their hands during which they can be guided to do something relaxing and truly enriching for the mind like reading for pleasure is...that is very, very sad.
Not everyone is a "group activity" kind of individual but virtually all children should be expected to get to a point where they read for pleasure.
Group activities can be extremely tiresome for many children and they leave no room for self-reflection or any other TRULY enriching and personal moments.
Besides they do little in the way of advancing high academic performance or quality relationships. The vast majority of children can derive lots of pleasure out of relaxing with a book in their hands.
I agree but such is our high tech society. It's just no like the days when our parents could tell us to get lost and come home when the street lights came on. Dh grew up on a farm, his mother expected him home when the dinner bell rang. Kids weren't plugged in and while we had TV's, we didn't have a need to have it on all the time.
If I could have a second shot at raising my kids, I would have, severely, limited TV time and wouldn't have even introduced them to computer games. I started my kids on Jump Start Toddlers thinking I was helping them learn when I was really teaching them to have short attention spans and to expect colorful graphics. In our zeal to raise the smartest baby, we're hurting our kids.
You are smarter than me, as a parent. I let my kids play "educational" games all the time. It just never dawned on me I was doing more harm than good. At least I never bought the baby Einstein tapes.
We really need to just unplug our kids. 20/20 hind sight, I'm glad my kids went to day care where they didn't have computers or TV. They just had toys and other kids to play with. Not that I used the TV as a baby sitter but I was way too liberal on computer time and, probably, let them watch too much TV thinking that shows like Barney and Sesame Street were good for them. I cannot account for where my brain was when I let dd watch Teletubbies. Too bad we don't get do overs in parenting. New parents get hit from all sides about stimulating baby....how about just letting baby be a baby?
That was in response to another poster's contribution, but it does bear saying that the "average" kid actually IS more and more likely to be living in a family in economic dire straits. Inner city, rural, small town, burbs...more kids and more families are facing the ramifications of unemployment, home foreclosure, etc. It's not just ghetto and Appalachia anymore.
I looked it up. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. children are impoverished, of course the rate is much higher for minority groups. Scary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In our zeal to raise the smartest baby, we're hurting our kids.
. Too bad we don't get do overs in parenting. New parents get hit from all sides about stimulating baby....how about just letting baby be a baby?
