Sometimes I surprise myself. I'm not a big proponent of the standardized tests that are now required in order to graduate from high school in Massachusetts. I don't think that the test is a good one, nor do I think that the pressure to teach to the test is a great idea for curriculum. Lastly, I think it's horribly unfair to require every student to pass the test, regardless of special needs. But that's neither here nor there. They're required by law, the kids have to take them, and they have to pass them in order to get their high school diploma.
Recently, Massachusetts has added a new science portion to the test. Last week, when the MCAS results were released, the news was bad. A large percentage of the kids taking the science portion of the test, which won't be required for graduation until the class of 2010, didn't pass the test. My daughter is a proud member of the class of 2010, and passing the test is necessary for her to be granted a diploma, so we all waited for the test scores to arrive with a sense of dread.
When she took the test last spring, she didn't think she did well. Her particular test was in physics, and she got a great grade in the class and I know she learned all the salient points of the class, but she was worried she didn't pass. That's a lot of pressure on a kid, knowing that she's in the first class required to pass this section of the test as well as all the other sections.
The MCAS is a well-respected test. It has consistantly been rated as the best standardized test in the nation. For the most part, it does test what the state curriculum teaches. There are some oddities on this test, like the infamous 'stem and leaf plots' which are taught in 4th grade here in MA, but are not taught in many other places, leaving kids who move into the state post 4th grade in a pickles, but that's a problem with a non-standardized curriculum, one of the worst features of the NBLB statute.
Today in the mail we got the test results. I opened them with trepedation, thinking that she'll probably have scored in the 'needs improvement' segment. Imagine my shock when I saw that not only did she pass the test, she did so with a really great score, almost in the Advanced category. She was so surprised when I told her. She honestly was sure she had failed, and it was great to hear how surprised and proud she was. And I'm proud too, damn it. I hate standardized testing, but I have to admit I was thrilled to see she had passed when so many of the other kids in her class did not.
I still don't believe in requiring a test to be passed in order to graduate from high school, but I have to admit, I'm excited for my daughter to know she passed.
Now we wait for my son's scores. He has to pass everything this year for his diploma. I'm sure he passed everything, but the dread of waiting continues.
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Pay Day
No one can deny that payday is their favorite day of the week. But what happens when you are no longer the employee –but rather the boss? And just how much do you pay these micro employees? And just what do their job descriptions entail?
At Casa Del Whirlwind, pay is at an all time low. All work is done on a volunteer basis. So far, there has been no mutiny, but I feel those days are numbered. With a growing affection to all things Pokémon and knowledge gleamed from communicating with peers*, it's only a matter of time before they demand an allowence.
So far, it’s been accepted that it is their job to help set the table, clear their plates when finished, help make their beds and pick up toys when they are finished playing with them. Einey has even started helping with the laundry, if she’s with me, she’ll try to mate socks and fold the washcloths. Moe feels it’s her duty to clean the lint filter and will fight for that job. All three of the girls take turns making sure the dog is fed and has clean water. Come time to feed the lizard, they take turns going to the pet store and “paying” for the crickets and then carrying them back home. Other than that, their other responsibilities are finishing their homework when they come home from school and being nice to their siblings. Now granted, not every task is carried out without complaint, but they usually get most of it done.
During the summer months, they help outside by raking, planting, and carrying sticks to new locations. They pull weeds and pick the vegetables. None of this is required of them, they just think its fun to help. When does it go from being fun to being a chore?Apparently I should be paying them for these tasks. Or so it's been mentioned. Just when should they get an allowance? And for what tasks? Is it too much to just expect them to do basic household help without expecting money for it? Or should I have to pay them to do things that should be their responsibility to do in the first place?
*Daughter goes to a private school where not only is it apparent that many kids get allowances, but also the Tooth Fairy leaves $5.00 per tooth.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
High School Trips
One of the big rights of passage in our high school is the big trip. Only our school, being comprised of a lot of ridiculously wealthy families, doesn't just offer the typical Washington DC, London, or maybe New York City trips. Oh no, that would be too pedestrian. They take yearly trips to Prague, Paris, London, China, Japan, Central and South America, and Israel. Oh, and Washington DC, too. This year my kids both have their hearts set on taking a trip. My son wants to go on the Prague trip so badly that he's taken to asking every adult he knows to subsidize him. So far, he hasn't earned a cent.
My daughter just came home and announced that she wanted to go on the Washington DC trip. It's for a week in March, she reported. Except that we have no school vacation in March. We have a week in February, and a week in April, but not in March. I think she's a bit confused. She also told me that the trip costs $1700+ for a week. I think that's pretty pricey, and definitely out of our price range.
I don't recall having so many trip options when I was in high school. In fact, looking back through my yearbook shows that we had no trips at all. None. But with this generation of overpampered kids, taking trips abroad seems to be par for the course. When my daughter was in 5th grade, she was asked to come to Paris with a friend of hers. Um, Paris? Needless to say, she didn't go. Just how much is a 5th grader going to appreciate Paris without her family?
I have been thinking about this and I'm wondering if these trips are really beneficial for kids. I know they have a lot of fun on the trips, and they are led by school personnel, but really, how much can a kid learn in a week about a totally foreign country like China? Plus, the cost of these trips makes kids who aren't in the upper echelon financially feel continually left out. My son, who is a junior, has friends who are going on their second and third trip this year. Seeing the world on school vacations has got to be better than hanging out at home playing Xbox. No doubt about it. But is it right to spend so lavishly on a child? Do kids really need to take 2, 3, or even 4 trips during high school to visit foreign lands? I'm just not sure that this is the best use of a kid's time, especially during junior year. On the other hand, it is a great way to pad the resume for college admissions, but there again it becomes an elitist thing. The child that can't afford to go is at a distinct disadvantage once again.
I love when people claim that there isn't a class system in America. Oh, yes there is. When those of you with younger kids start dealing with high school and the competition to get the best grades, do the most internships, travel to the farthest points on earth, and receive the most SAT prep, you'll see just how divided this country is. For those who can't afford to swing Drivers Ed, SAT prep and a class trip all in the same year, or in fact even one of those things, your child will be at a severe disadvantage when it's college application time.
I think it stinks. What about you?
My daughter just came home and announced that she wanted to go on the Washington DC trip. It's for a week in March, she reported. Except that we have no school vacation in March. We have a week in February, and a week in April, but not in March. I think she's a bit confused. She also told me that the trip costs $1700+ for a week. I think that's pretty pricey, and definitely out of our price range.
I don't recall having so many trip options when I was in high school. In fact, looking back through my yearbook shows that we had no trips at all. None. But with this generation of overpampered kids, taking trips abroad seems to be par for the course. When my daughter was in 5th grade, she was asked to come to Paris with a friend of hers. Um, Paris? Needless to say, she didn't go. Just how much is a 5th grader going to appreciate Paris without her family?
I have been thinking about this and I'm wondering if these trips are really beneficial for kids. I know they have a lot of fun on the trips, and they are led by school personnel, but really, how much can a kid learn in a week about a totally foreign country like China? Plus, the cost of these trips makes kids who aren't in the upper echelon financially feel continually left out. My son, who is a junior, has friends who are going on their second and third trip this year. Seeing the world on school vacations has got to be better than hanging out at home playing Xbox. No doubt about it. But is it right to spend so lavishly on a child? Do kids really need to take 2, 3, or even 4 trips during high school to visit foreign lands? I'm just not sure that this is the best use of a kid's time, especially during junior year. On the other hand, it is a great way to pad the resume for college admissions, but there again it becomes an elitist thing. The child that can't afford to go is at a distinct disadvantage once again.
I love when people claim that there isn't a class system in America. Oh, yes there is. When those of you with younger kids start dealing with high school and the competition to get the best grades, do the most internships, travel to the farthest points on earth, and receive the most SAT prep, you'll see just how divided this country is. For those who can't afford to swing Drivers Ed, SAT prep and a class trip all in the same year, or in fact even one of those things, your child will be at a severe disadvantage when it's college application time.
I think it stinks. What about you?
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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
My Husband's Going to Grad School, and All I Got is This Lousy T-Shirt
In a few short weeks, life as I know it will change radically. That is because my husband will begin a two-year MBA program.I will be able to kid myself at first. After all, he is usually gone to work before 6am and home after 6pm, so those hours of the day are almost always mine, mine, mine. I may not bring home the bacon, but can I fry it in a pan? Check. Can I keep three kids, ages 3, 4 & 6, happy and entertained? Check. Can I keep the house clean, laundry done, plants watered? Check (sort of). Can I homeschool our oldest for first grade? Check (although I worry for my sanity at about this point).
But, I know that the day will come when. . . he has a big test, the kids have the stomach flu, my mom can't come over, the refrigerator is empty, the laundry pile is huge; and I will sob big salty tears for those days when "daddy" could take over for a few hours. And I'll know that I had it really good back then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)