My oldest son will officially be ready for preschool next fall. He currently goes to a toddler program and I'm pretty happy with it - except for the fact that he has to go for six hours a day. That means that I'm paying for him to nap there when he could easily nap at home for free. I tried to see if the center had any flexibility on that six-hour minimum - like could he attend for four instead?
"Sure. You can pick him up whenever you like. But we have to charge you for the full six hours."
I'm also free to set a pile of money on fire every month, but I'm not about to do that either. So I foolishly thought we'd just send him somewhere else. How hard can it be to find a preschool? My requirements are pretty simple:
1. It must be safe
2. It must be clean
3. It must be a happy enviroment - smiling teachers, happy kids
4. It has to be within a 15 minute drive from home (why add more stress to my life?)
I'm happy to drop him off at any school that meets those basic requirements so that he can glue leaves to construction paper and kick balls in the playground to his heart's content (as far as I can tell this is the bulk of his school day - save for snack time - snack time is HUGE at his school).
So I start calling and visiting the local schools, checking to see if they had any room for my son. Surprise! They're all full! And the waitlist? Full as well! Did you know that you have to apply at least a year in advance in order to get into PRESCHOOL?
Let's take a minute here for a reality check: My applications to graduate school were due in January and by April I was looking for an off-campus apartment. It takes 3 months to get into business school, but it takes 13 months to get into PRESCHOOL.
My mind. It is boggled.
Thankfully, none of the preschools I'm considering are on Boston Magazine's list of the "finest preschools" or I'd be in real trouble.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
True (school) colors
When I was young, my parents sent my sister and me to a small, private Catholic elementary school. In kindergarten little more was required of us than sleeping on the appropriate mat at nap time (do they even do that anymore in kindergarten?) and showing up properly clothed and washed, which usually meant clean play clothes with no rips or tears.
Once we graduated from kindergarten and became first graders it became a requirement to don skirts or dresses, for the girls, and dress pants, collared shirts and clip on ties for the boys. And this was strictly enforced. If you showed up in something other than the required dress your mother would be called and you'd have to spend the time waiting for her in the principal's office.
Even in winter the girls would have to wear a skirt or dress of some sort and if the weather got below a certain temperature we were begrudgingly allowed to wear dress pants under our skirts. Tres chic.
Although, occasionally I wore culottes to school. I felt like such a rebel.
This dress code went on for some time until about five or so years ago, when the perceived guidelines of "dress attire" was strained to the breaking point, with colored denim jeans being passed off for slacks and sweatshirts or t-shirts being worn on days other than the hard won "grub days". The principal decided that a dress code was in order, or more to the point, a school uniform.
Sure, the kids hated it at first but from what I heard from my mother, who was then still alive and working at the school as its secretary, it became easier and easier to convince the children that the uniform could be worn with pride.
But these were elementary school children.
And the uniform was required at a private school.
This year at Lawrence High School in Lawrence, MA a mandatory school dress code is now being enforced. And it's not just dress pants and skirts, but full uniforms with collared polo shirts and khaki pants.
The school is broken up into six smaller schools based on the student's prime area of study - for instance, math, science and technology or health and human services - and this year administrators are requiring students to wear color-coded uniforms to indicate which school they belong to.
"It's unusual," said Superintendent Wilfredo T. Laboy, who launched the six schools within one as part of his educational overhaul effort for city schools. "But all the research that supports uniforms shows that it creates team spirit, it creates identity, it creates collaboration." (source: Boston Globe)
This was a big topic of discussion on the local radio talk shows today. Lawrence High is a public school. Are civil liberties being trampled on? Are administrators crossing a line by making school uniforms in a public, city funded school mandatory? Does having a school uniform hinder a student's individuality and ability to express themselves through their clothing? Or does this cut down on the amount of obscenely low-waisted jeans that show off a girl's thong - not to mention the low-wasted pants that show off a boy's boxers?
The uniforms are not being paid for by the city. Parents can purchase their children's uniforms through three stores in Lawrence for much cheaper than a pair of trendy jeans.
I don't know how I feel about this personally. My daughter isn't even old enough for pre-school (now that is a whole other issue entirely) so the possibility of school uniforms is not really in our near future. If I sent her to a private school I wouldn't take issue with mandatory uniforms, but I will admit that enforcing this in public schools has made me think.
What if this had been the rule when I was in high school? I certainly wouldn't have liked it. But it would have saved me from matching my Cosby sweater with my double layers of slouchy socks and pinch rolling my pants.
Maybe uniforms aren't such a bad idea after all.
Once we graduated from kindergarten and became first graders it became a requirement to don skirts or dresses, for the girls, and dress pants, collared shirts and clip on ties for the boys. And this was strictly enforced. If you showed up in something other than the required dress your mother would be called and you'd have to spend the time waiting for her in the principal's office.
Even in winter the girls would have to wear a skirt or dress of some sort and if the weather got below a certain temperature we were begrudgingly allowed to wear dress pants under our skirts. Tres chic.
Although, occasionally I wore culottes to school. I felt like such a rebel.
This dress code went on for some time until about five or so years ago, when the perceived guidelines of "dress attire" was strained to the breaking point, with colored denim jeans being passed off for slacks and sweatshirts or t-shirts being worn on days other than the hard won "grub days". The principal decided that a dress code was in order, or more to the point, a school uniform.
Sure, the kids hated it at first but from what I heard from my mother, who was then still alive and working at the school as its secretary, it became easier and easier to convince the children that the uniform could be worn with pride.
But these were elementary school children.
And the uniform was required at a private school.
This year at Lawrence High School in Lawrence, MA a mandatory school dress code is now being enforced. And it's not just dress pants and skirts, but full uniforms with collared polo shirts and khaki pants.
The school is broken up into six smaller schools based on the student's prime area of study - for instance, math, science and technology or health and human services - and this year administrators are requiring students to wear color-coded uniforms to indicate which school they belong to.
"It's unusual," said Superintendent Wilfredo T. Laboy, who launched the six schools within one as part of his educational overhaul effort for city schools. "But all the research that supports uniforms shows that it creates team spirit, it creates identity, it creates collaboration." (source: Boston Globe)
This was a big topic of discussion on the local radio talk shows today. Lawrence High is a public school. Are civil liberties being trampled on? Are administrators crossing a line by making school uniforms in a public, city funded school mandatory? Does having a school uniform hinder a student's individuality and ability to express themselves through their clothing? Or does this cut down on the amount of obscenely low-waisted jeans that show off a girl's thong - not to mention the low-wasted pants that show off a boy's boxers?
The uniforms are not being paid for by the city. Parents can purchase their children's uniforms through three stores in Lawrence for much cheaper than a pair of trendy jeans.
I don't know how I feel about this personally. My daughter isn't even old enough for pre-school (now that is a whole other issue entirely) so the possibility of school uniforms is not really in our near future. If I sent her to a private school I wouldn't take issue with mandatory uniforms, but I will admit that enforcing this in public schools has made me think.
What if this had been the rule when I was in high school? I certainly wouldn't have liked it. But it would have saved me from matching my Cosby sweater with my double layers of slouchy socks and pinch rolling my pants.
Maybe uniforms aren't such a bad idea after all.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Pay now or pay later
I subscribe to an educational news feed that sends me stories from all over the world. In today's feed, there was an article about a failed initiative in Scotland as well as notes on programs from California, New Jersey, and the bus full of kids who escaped from the Minneapolis bridge collapse, just to name a few. What struck me about today's brief is that three of the articles related directly to Massachusetts. One reported that the residents of Bridgewater voted to fund their schools and cut from the budgets of other programs another praised a program for aspiring engineers. I skimmed the first two but I paid close attention to the third: Hub weighs dorm for 'couch surfers.'
Nearly 50,000 children of school age in Massachusetts are homeless. About 10% of those kids are teens who leave home to escape abuse or as a result of their own emotional and addiction issues. Now, school leaders are considering adding a residential program to an alternative high school in Roxbury.
There aren't many people who wouldn't be moved by the stories of the kids profiled in the article, many of whom live in extreme poverty and spend their nights couch surfing:
"In some ways, a school doesn't have any business getting into housing. But what some of these kids may need most is a consistent home where there is order and people around who they can trust and who have their act together," said DeWitt Jones, chairman of the board of trustees for Boston Day and Evening.
Shaquillia Meadows, 16, who spent the last school year bouncing among friends' homes, sleeping on air mattresses, said she would benefit from a residential program at the school, where she is a sophomore.
"I felt like dropping out, but, honestly, I don't want to end up like my mother," said Meadows, who wants to study forensics in college. "If I had somewhere to go home to and eat and shower and rest my head, I would be like, 'Ok, now I could finish school.' "
As Dickensian as some may perceive boarding schools to be, I've spent time in residential schools and that are, for some kids, the first time they've been in a stable environment with a routine and predictable rules and boundaries. Sure, the lure of the street is powerful and these kids arrive with more baggage than they can carry but for these kids, the presence of one steady, charismatic adult can change them forever.
"...some educators and advocates for the homeless say the program could be risky for the school because it might distract administrators from their primary mission, education, as they take up the role of a social service agency." Of course the program will be risky. Of course it will. But I'm not sure a well-run residential program is any riskier than a teenager living on the street. Funding for education is always controversial. I happen to believe that the best programs aren't always the most heavily funded and that towns, such as Bridgewater, need to decide where their priorities lie when writing budgets.
But when you take into account all the risks that homeless teens face- pregnancy, addiction, incarceration, dropping out of school- and weigh them against the expense of a program that has the potential to provide a chance to right the ship. I vote for the ship.
Nearly 50,000 children of school age in Massachusetts are homeless. About 10% of those kids are teens who leave home to escape abuse or as a result of their own emotional and addiction issues. Now, school leaders are considering adding a residential program to an alternative high school in Roxbury.
There aren't many people who wouldn't be moved by the stories of the kids profiled in the article, many of whom live in extreme poverty and spend their nights couch surfing:
"In some ways, a school doesn't have any business getting into housing. But what some of these kids may need most is a consistent home where there is order and people around who they can trust and who have their act together," said DeWitt Jones, chairman of the board of trustees for Boston Day and Evening.
Shaquillia Meadows, 16, who spent the last school year bouncing among friends' homes, sleeping on air mattresses, said she would benefit from a residential program at the school, where she is a sophomore.
"I felt like dropping out, but, honestly, I don't want to end up like my mother," said Meadows, who wants to study forensics in college. "If I had somewhere to go home to and eat and shower and rest my head, I would be like, 'Ok, now I could finish school.' "
As Dickensian as some may perceive boarding schools to be, I've spent time in residential schools and that are, for some kids, the first time they've been in a stable environment with a routine and predictable rules and boundaries. Sure, the lure of the street is powerful and these kids arrive with more baggage than they can carry but for these kids, the presence of one steady, charismatic adult can change them forever.
"...some educators and advocates for the homeless say the program could be risky for the school because it might distract administrators from their primary mission, education, as they take up the role of a social service agency." Of course the program will be risky. Of course it will. But I'm not sure a well-run residential program is any riskier than a teenager living on the street. Funding for education is always controversial. I happen to believe that the best programs aren't always the most heavily funded and that towns, such as Bridgewater, need to decide where their priorities lie when writing budgets.
But when you take into account all the risks that homeless teens face- pregnancy, addiction, incarceration, dropping out of school- and weigh them against the expense of a program that has the potential to provide a chance to right the ship. I vote for the ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)