Recently in education Category

It's often said that education is a good investment, but with budget cuts happening at steady pace in light of the economic turmoil, many are wondering when our schools, teachers and students will find relief. Recently the Frugal Families community discussed a proposal in Florida that would allow districts to shorten the school week to four days in an effort to save operating costs. Saving money is one thing, but how does this impact the children and their families? These moms offer their reactions:

"As it is, there are all sorts of other budget cuts, but this possible new schedule is beginning to flash in neon lights. The kids are in school about 6 hours a day ,if the 4 day schedule goes through they would be in school an additional 1 hour and 15 minutes."  -- jennebryan

"I could see how this could cause huge problems for families that don't have the flexibility that we have. It could be a drain on finances and add stress to those that need to arrange child care. I don't have a problem with it, but I also think if changes like that are to be implemented, more after-school care needs to be provided or employers need to pick up the slack. We need to improve that sector of American society." -- kw135705

"Parents are going to need to find child care. The kids who are older have more time to get into trouble. There are kids hanging [out] with nothing to do. My kids would probably just veg but some kids would be home alone. It can only be a bad thing. -- lisa19712003

"As a teacher, I am not in favor of it. My day is already long enough, and I don't know how I would get through the additional hour or two everyday. I give my students my all for 5 hours a day (plus I have 2 hours of planning/duty), and it would be very difficult to provide meaningful instruction for an additional 1-2 hours a day. I also believe my students (low level) would have trouble focusing and learning.  I believe it's the students who will suffer in the end.  Anyone who lives in this state knows that we need to ADD money, resources, and programs - not take away." -- lovingmytwoboys

"Moving to a 4 day week bothers me a lot. The day would be way too long for elementary kids. Plus, that is a huge burden on parents who work. Where are they supposed to find all day care for their kids just on Fridays? How is a working class parent supposed to pay for that?" -- addieandclairesmom

 

I'm not sure why it is, but the topic of teen pregnancy tends to just set people off. Maybe it's that the tricky minefields of politics and religious beliefs are always a part of the mix ... or the fear that we'll have to deal with this with our own sons and daughters? Every time we've covered a story relating to teen moms, it definitely creates a frenzy ... remember the posts on high school maternity leave, middle school birth control and the teen pregnancy pact story? We've asked this before, but as we roar into the election season with a young mom-to-be polarizing an already charged political atmosphere everyone seems to be wondering: does abstinence-only sex ed really work? This is a topic we often see on our debate boards, but also from our playgroups as parents struggle to balance what's appropriate to share and when with their children as they grow. A sampling of opinion from around our community on this issue:

"I think it's important for schools to have sex ed because not all parents are involved and some kids won't get it any other way. Having said that, I think sex ed in schools should offer specific information about all of the risks of having sex, specific information about all of the various methods of contraception, and specific information about the failure rates of each method and what will make them fail... Abstinence-only sex ed is a waste of time and resources as far as I'm concerned. I will take it upon myself to arm my children with good info because I will want to be sure that they know what I want them to know even if school won't teach it to them. That's my job as a parent." -- white.wave7

"I would rather do the sex education myself apart from the basic biology. There are a lot of moral and emotional judgment calls there and I want an open conversation with my daughters." -- momranhan

"Abstinence only, to me, is just a way to set kids up for failure. Abstinence only seems to makes it the forbidden fruit problem and kids always want what they can't have or what they are told they can't have, for the most part. " -- crunchydoula

We've savored that last long weekend of summer and now the kids are back in school, whether they like it or not (more like the latter in the case of my daughter who just started middle school yesterday). In many areas of the US, school's been in session for a few weeks now and along with that, the boards have been buzzing with a lineup of back-to-school topics that may just be longer than that 3rd grade supply list you've been stuck with.

It seems to have become a running joke, but the super-long school supply list is no laughing matter in terms of the hassle and expense. Sure, it's a necessary evil, but some are wondering if things are getting a little ridiculous, while others are sharing their tips for making things a bit more simple and affordable. On our Living Simple & Green and Frugal Families boards we are seeing a good mix of perspectives from both parents and teachers:

"Am I the only one who is repeatedly blindsided by school expenses?  My kids go to public school, so thankfully there is no tuition or fees, and I can control what I buy for their wardrobe. What about: PTA dues, School fundraisers, Equipment for extra curricular activities (my dd needs $22 for band shoes and another $20 for the gloves!?), Gym clothes, I know some schools have to rent instruments What "extras" do you have to include, and do you keep a separate fund for them?" -- my4lovies

"My biggest pet peeve is mechanical pencils - students are always taking the lead out and it is all over the place or they don't have lead and expect the teacher to provide the lead. You would be absolutely amazed at what kids bring to school that prevents them from learning, and how many kids bring absolutely NO supplies at all and expect the teacher to provide for them. " -- imonmyway2000

"The kids will re-use their binders, pencil boxes, sharpeners a folder or two, and if I could (meaning they didnt come back last year) they would use scissors.  We bought new markers and crayons, paper, some folders, and anything not required last year like highlighters or pens.  But I wont send them all in because I feel like that opens the door to waste." -- momof2inbe

Speaking of fundraisers... on the 4th, 5th and 6th Grade board, janetis40 asks: "Am I alone in hating fundraisers?" I can't speak for everyone, Janet, but I'm pretty sure the answer is a resounding "no!" (See also: Where's the Fun in Fundraising?)

It's a topic we've debated before and the idea of lowering the legal drinking age in the U.S. from 21 to 18 is now being raised again by what seems like an unlikely source -- college presidents from some well-known universities. In what's known as the "Amethyst Initiative," college chancellors and presidents are signing on to reopen public debate over the drinking age. The supporters of the idea say that the current drinking age sets up a scenario where younger college students are more likely to engage in binge drinking. Some feel that giving students the responsibility to imbibe in moderation and make smart decisions lets these campuses treat all students as true adults. Others think it's a deadly idea. Mothers Against Drunk Driving argues that years of statistics that say the drinking age of 21 has saved an estimated 25,000 lives since the legal age was raised to 21 in 1984.

So what do iVillagers say about this recent hot-button issue?

On Mom & Politics, it looks like not many are in favor so far and feel most 18-year-olds can't handle the responsibility:

"I think it would be a bad idea. Wow, could you imagine a high school party when most of the seniors can LEGALLY buy and consume alcohol?! That would be very scary." -- dansmom2003

"I think that the colleges want it because it takes the responsibility of enforcing the laws away from them. I even asked my 18-year-old son what he thought and he looked at me as if I was crazy... he said that it would be a really bad idea because there are enough drunken 18-year-olds with the law in place without there being more." -- cl-weberdns0

There's nothing like a little controversy over teen pregnancy to get the iVillage community buzzing with their reaction -- just look at our coverage of sex ed, teen maternity leave and middle school birth control. The latest story that has our members shocked and outraged is the report that a sharp increase in the teen pregnancy rate for one Massachusetts town may have resulted from a "pregnancy pact" among girls who vowed to get pregnant together. Even though the town officials are now backing away from this story, there has been a firestorm of disbelief and attempts at explaining what most would argue to be a baffling choice (to say the least...) for the girls, many 16 and younger. Whether or not there is any truth to the story of the pact, the notion of teen girls getting pregnant on purpose (and the general concern over teen pregnancy rates) has iVillage message boards such as In the News and Current Debates in a frenzy. Recently the Troubled Teens board also wrestled with this issue and the alarming attitudes teens had about pregnancy epidemics in their own towns.

Many are wondering what on Earth a young girl would be thinking and the whereabouts of the parents. iVillager poppigirl06 from the June 2006 Playgroup echoes the sentiments of many on our boards, saying:

"Wow! Where are these girls parents'? The school and community are talking about making contraceptives available but where are the girls' parents in all of this?!"

On our Pregnant After a Loss message board wannabesteph shares her concerns:

"I agree these girls must not have much in the way of parental guidance, or who knows - maybe they do and this is just the new "in" thing to do. When I was in high school it was smoking cigarettes, kwim? Is this the new cool thing? Scares the crap out of me especially since I have a daughter (actually almost TWO!) that I hope and pray I can raise to be responsible adults and fight the urge to follow the pact."

candybonesx from the September 2008 Expecting Club offers a different perspective on the issue of parental involvement and I think she may have a point here:

"Maybe I am a little biased because I'm a pregnant teen. But it's kind of dumb to ask where their mothers are. I didn't ask my mom for permission to have sex and I'm sure you don't either."

Touché.

In an effort to explain what would drive a child to want a child, hightopsfrom the Trying to Conceive - 6+ months messsage board offers:

"The girls did it because it is the one thing they can control in their lives. You have a baby, you get an apartment and checks and foodstamps, etc. So, it probably looked like a good deal to them."

navygal06 from the Military Wives community chimes in on a similar discussion:

"I have a friend who volunteers at the crisis pregnancy center. The majority of pregnancy tests they perform are on teenage girls who are trying to have a baby. The usual response they give when asked why is either "to have someone to love" or "so my boyfriend won't leave me"."

The September 2008 Expecting Club gals had several more great quotes on the topic, witness:

From mom_camilled: "And you know who's going to end up paying for all of those babies? Not the father! All of the taxpayers. How stupid can you be to purposely get pregnant like that?"

From sungoddessoxox: "It really does seem to be an "epidemic" of sorts. My sister is 19 and I would say that between 10-15 or her girl friends either have babies or are pregnant (not to mention the ones who are trying for one). Most of her friends had them or got pregnant at much younger than 19 though. Mostly 15-17. I mean if you really stop to think about it...that's a LOT of girls in high school with babies."

And while some are pointing fingers at movies like Juno for glamorizing teen pregnancy, thistlemchays (also a September 2008 expecting mom) objects:

"I guess what sticks out here, to me, is that they are blaming the movie "Juno" as one possible influence on these girls to get PG at such a young age. I have heard this before, in reference to the "teen PG epidemic" of late. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think "Juno" glamorized teen pregnancy in any way at all. Have you seen the movie? I found it to be kind of sad, actually ... It always puzzles me when I see the movie being blamed for teens getting PG because I just didn't see anything glamorous about it at all. "

mama_lah from the March 2007 Playgroup concurs:

"Wow....I am seriously a little speechless.... no wait here it goes. First of all I think it is ridiculous to say that movies like Juno or Knocked up made being pregnant look glamorous."

Of course for all the speculating on the who, what and whys of the situation, the fact remains that the small New England town of Gloucester will be experiencing a teen baby boom in the coming months, and if the pact scenario is true, there may not have been much that could have been done to prevent it. While parents, school officials and experts are lamenting over preventing more teen pregnancies, it will be interesting to see how the community changes, for better or worse, and how these young mothers will be received, if not supported, after a furor of media scrutiny over the past several days.

What do you think? Is there any one specific thing to blame for teen pregnancy rates climbing in some local communities? Are we doing a poor job of educating and offering our teens other options? Share your thoughts and comments on this story with us. 

Homeschooling has always been a hot topic in the iVillage community, but a recent California Court of Appeal ruling that says parents now need teaching credentials to homeschool their kids really had the message boards buzzing.

The ruling—which would make California the strictest on homeschooling—stemmed from a case involving a Los Angeles-area couple who homeschooled their eight children. One of the children claimed the father was physically abusive.

Not surprisingly, many iVillagers and homeschool advocates, such as member summerbaby99 are angry about the ruling, calling it flat-out wrong: "This is wrong on so many levels, I just can't believe that a judge, let alone a panel of three judges, have come to this decision. I fail to see how having a child taught by a credentialed teacher would protect them from abuse."

Member is_it_christmas_yet from the December 2006 Playgroup agrees, calling the ruling ridiculous: "Personally, I find it completely offensive that any state would force a parent to have a teaching certificate to teach their OWN child. What's next? A [psychology] degree before you can counsel your kid? A medical degree before you can stick on a Band-Aid? I would petition this law, and I would move if I had to. It's ridiculous to think that teachers know the best way to teach ... No one is better equipped to make decisions on a child than that child's parents."

Does the ruling actually intrude on parental rights? Many seem to think so. leoandnatesmom from the March 2006 Playgroup says: "People who choose to homeschool do so because some aspect of the public school system does not meet their needs. Maybe it is substance and maybe it is the quality of the teachers or the environment or some combination of these and many other factors. To require these parents to have the same credentials as public school teachers, which I presume is cost-prohibitive, is akin to outlawing homeschooling... On a more fundamental level, private school teachers don't have to have teaching degrees, so why should parents who homeschool?"

Some iVillagers, however, such as certified teacher dcnanny, agree with the ruling: "I have often wondered about so many children being homeschooled by parents who are wonderfully well-intentioned and loving, but not up to the challenge that is an inherent part of strong teaching. I worry about the rigor of home programs, I worry about the socialization, I worry about lags that students have shown when they come into my very own classroom after being homeschooled."

Member addieandclairesmom from the January 2007 Playgroup see the benefit in having standards (though not necessarily teaching credentials) followed for homeschooling: "I do support standards for homeschooled kids, making sure they are learning what they are supposed to [be learning] ... Despite the best intentions of homeschooling, parents just aren't capable of teaching their children. Sad but true. As a teacher, I've seen kids come back to public school after being homeschooled. Some have been ahead academically but a few were way behind. No parent sets out to do a bad job homeschooling, but it happens. I'm sure most homeschooling parents do their research, but some dont. And really, if you're not a teacher, how would you know what math skills a third-grader is supposed to know? If you dont research it to find out, or use a preplanned curriculum, how would you know?"

What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think parents need teaching credentials to homeschool their children? Leave your commments below.

Community Producer Stephanie is fairly new to our team, but she already knows how to push my buttons! This, of course, is exactly why she's so good at what she does. After my last rant about the school fundraisers, I think she knew she had an easy mark when she tipped me off to the conversations happening around this article about fingerprinting children at school to use biometric technology to speed up the lunch line. Say what? In order to get the kids moving through the line a bit faster, a school district in Colorado planned to use fingerprint scanning to store information about the kids' lunch accounts and remove the need for lunch tickets, ID numbers or cards. That is until some parents found out about the approach and cried foul, citing privacy concerns. Finger scanning is already in place in some schools in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and West Virginia, while other states have explicitly barred schools from collecting this information for such purposes. I'll just come right out and say that I'm not for the use of biometrics in schools to speed up the lunch lines. Sure, there are valid privacy concerns and I could easily veer off into "Well why don't we just MICROCHIP everyone", but there's an easier less-paranoid argument to be made. And that's simply that I feel the expense, implementation and upkeep of a finger scan system is an overreaction to a relatively simple problem. So I was all set to get my rant on when I realized ... I don't even have to: our iVillage community is already on the case!

I imagine iVillage member jagl1 on the In the News message board speaks for many, saying "I am against this whole using biometrics for identifying minor children, with the exception of police departments. NO ONE should be trusted with this kind of unique information." She then points out (very astutely I might add): "How many times have I heard about some government entity having its a laptop swiped? No thank you. ... Do I have a better idea? What's wrong with ID cards? If the ID card is lost, a new ID card and # should be issued." Exactly!

While I was busy nodding along with jagl1's comments, along comes my2craigs who pretty much took the rest of the words out of my mouth with this comment: "There are a lot of other ways to speed up a lunch line." Indeed -- like high-speed conveyor belts and only serving bread and water, for starters. Ok maybe not, but she goes on to put her finger on (ahem) what is probably the real issue here: "Maybe the problem is with too short a lunch period. Come on..20 minutes?? That's just crazy. Are we so desperate for class time to try to cram more info into children or give them a standardized test that we can't give them enough time to eat or play or just have some down time?" Oh don't even get me started, my2craigs ... don't even get me started!

There's also been some talk about the issue of fingerprinting on the November 2006 Ginger Snaps playgroup. flmanatee23 is somewhat torn about this issue: "At first I was all for it, this just seemed like a great piece of advancement schools should be utilizing… then I started to think about the future of identification and of course identification theft…and my other side isn’t so sure anymore. While as a school teacher I am all for adding valuable time to lunch lol, I am not sure if I would want the school board keeping such sensitive records."

So what do you think? Is fingerprint scanning a great idea to keep the lines moving and store kids' info at school or is it one step closer to total government control? Or maybe somewhere in the less extreme middle? How does your child's school handle lunchtime? Do you feel they get enough time to eat their lunch? Of course if your school district is already using this technology, I'm especially interested in hearing from you! Look, I'm not against using technology to improve our lives and make things more efficient, but I say let's hold off on applying it to the school lunch line until we all get our flying cars. Who's with me?

what's this?

Ah ... the kids are back in school, that feeling of fall is in the air and jumbo bags of Halloween candy are lining every aisle at your local drugstore. Before you're lulled into a false sense of security with the promise of "fun size" Snickers, I do need to remind you that it's also the season for something much more sinister.

Yes, that's right: the school fundraiser.

It's that time again, folks, and there's nowhere you can hide to escape the lure of children selling reams of holiday wrapping paper, $20 a pound chocolate covered cherries or giant tubs of cookie dough. (Not that I have anything against giant tubs of cookie dough, mind you.) Over the past few days, the iVillage Community Moderators have been swapping stories and lamenting over the yearly fundraising onslaught.

Of course we all can relate, especially those of us with kids in school. I will admit, I was mildly amused by this shared annoyance ... until my daughter came home yesterday with the dreaded fundraising catalog from her school. What is it about these fundraisers that make us cringe? Is it the products themselves? The pricing? The chintzy little "prizes" they use to motivate the kids ... so they can sell 20 items and get a light-up pen that also is a clock? Or is it the notion of fundraising in general?

Member aquagrl914 probably speaks for many iVillagers when she posted this on the Frugal Families message board: "I really hate school fundraisers GRRRRRRR!! My kids have been in school about a month now and they have already come home with pictures, 3 fundraisers, 2 book orders and 2 different fairs and silent auctions in the next two weeks."

Member e13lorena is feeling the pinch as well: "Fundrasiers are also crazy here and those darned book order forms - I don't buy any of it. I let the girls do the fund raisers if they want to ask people, but I don't buy from them. The school only gets 1/2 the money anyway and the stuff is soooo over-priced and the kids only want to sell it to get some stupid plastic prize if they sell so much."

On the 4th, 5th & 6th Grade message board janetis40 puts her finger on some of the awkwardness: "I hate asking family all the time to buy stuff that they really don't want ... so my Mom bought one thing and then my DH and I bought up the rest so she could at least go to the big party." and my2kidsmom199498 points out that it's even worse for the kids in after-school activities or other youth groups, "... it isn't just my kids' two schools running fundraisers, but they are both in scouts, so we have fall product, popcorn, cookies, and wreaths for both kids."

Enough is enough already? I bet there are several of you out there right now nodding your head, because you're going through the same thing. Go on, how many of you have kids with multiple fundraisers right now?

When the topic of school fundraisers came up on the Latter-Day Saint Families message board packofkids offered this perspective as a former PTA president:

"Back when I was PTA president I conducted a survey concerning fund raisers. 84% of the parents said they hated Sally Foster. Sally Foster is one of those "crap from China" companies, where the school/PTA gets 50% of the money. At our school parents buy $10,000 worth of crap and the school gets $5000. And that's with 84% hating it! The problem with those crap from China companies is they work, or else schools wouldn't use them."

She then goes on to say, "Remember that any fund raiser you participate in is basically saying, "I like this fund raiser, please bring it back next year."

Hmmm... she does have a point. So what's the answer here? Just suck it up, buy your wrapping paper and some cookie dough and get over it? How do you feel about the ubiquitous school fundraiser? Are you buying or balking? Making a cash donation instead? Are there fundraisers that you actually like? Share your opinions on school fundraising here, or join the discussion on the Frugal Families board.

Now... anyone in the market for some holiday gift tags or a giant summer sausage?

what's this?

As if moms of babies and young children didn't have enough to worry about with the latest toy recalls, a recent report by the Journal of Pediatrics states that educational videos geared toward babies and toddlers, such as the Baby Einstein series, have no clear benefit to a child's development and in some cases may hinder their language skills. The study of over 1,000 families with infants or toddlers found that for every hour of video per day, babies between the ages of 6 and 18 months actually knew fewer words than their non-video-watching counterparts. Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, even went so far as to quip "I would rather babies watch 'American Idol' than these videos." Because we all know babies love Randy Jackson. So are you a bad mom for letting your baby or toddler watch an educational video? Lord knows my daughter watched her fair share (and then some) of Barney back in the day. Have we ruined their lives forever?

Moms are discussing this study on the May 2007 Playgroup:

"Baby Einstein was a 20 minute break for me, not an educational tool. I think nothing on TV is as "educational" as the marketing teams make them out to be."

The November 2003 Playgroup moms come to pretty much the same conclusion:

"I think "everything in moderation" is important here, and letting them watch a video here and there shouldn't be a problem. When kids are left to sit and watch hours of TV on a regular basis, with no interaction with their parents, that is a problem..."

Ok, so no one is going to prescribe 24/7 television for babies -- or kids of any age for that matter. Is this study "news"? Do you feel that videos for babies and toddlers meet a need, whether it's educational or entertainment? Or should we just round up all the DVDs and throw them into the bonfire?

what's this?