Does a parent hold any responsibility in the education of their children?

by Boudica Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:06 am

I was just wondering what people on here think about the notion of a parent being involved in the education of their children.

According to a recent survey covered in the NASUWT magazine, over 25% of children are no longer read to at night. Homework is regularly ignored with the tacit permission of parents. I have had parents make abusive calls when their child is given a detention.

However, come parent's evening, they demand to know why proress isn't being made, if they bother to turn up at all.

So, when does society ask parents to take some responsibility, beyond the financial?

by Guest Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:51 am

Boudica wrote:
I was just wondering what people on here think about the notion of a parent being involved in the education of their children.

So, when does society ask parents to take some responsibility, beyond the financial?

A fundamental difference exists between reading skills and reading. Students who read use reading skills to receive, process, comprehend, and own information communicated via the printed word. Reading comprehension is linked to listening comprehension; students who are exposed to home reading perform far better in both areas than those whose reading occurs solely at school.

“You get what you pay for.” Sometimes the currency is neither pounds sterling nor US dollars.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:04 pm

Parents involving themselves in a child's education is like relatives caring for a patient's non-medical needs in Hospital.

"We have someone to do that."

by snowyflake Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:30 pm

Good parents involve themselves in their children's lives. Part of that life is compulsory attendance at a state educational institution. Children need support both from parents and the school. It's a combined effort. Just as patients in hospital need support from the medical staff and their relatives.

When OW is in hospital pooping himself silly while a pretty young nurse is wiping his bum, I wonder if he'll remember his ridiculous musings. Smile

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm

Give us a kiss, then. Laughing

by snowyflake Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:04 pm

I think a little sick has just come up in my mouth..... Embarassed

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:48 pm

I take it a shag's out of the question too.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:48 pm

Unutterably and convincingingly and unreservedly no.

I think I have to go take a shower now....

by boatlady Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:42 pm

All this quarrelling can get a little wearing

by Guest Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:10 am

oftenwrong wrote:
I take it a s**g's out of the question too.

The quoted text is despicable, disrespectful, and vulgar.

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:17 pm

So glad you took this seriously Very Happy

by tlttf Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:36 am

The parents hold the ultimate drive for their kids education, if they don't give a t*ss why should the kid. Kids are like puppies and need to be taught from a young age and this can only happen in the home prior to schooling.

by boatlady Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:42 am

I think all the evidence supports the idea that children who are read to and whose parents take an interest in their learning will on the whole do better in school.
It might be hard for parents, whose own experience of education was negative, to provide the requisite support or maintain a meaningful dialogue with the school.
It also doesn't help that often both parents are working to make ends meet for the family. Tired people are not always good educators.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:22 am

An early 20th Century longitudinal study found that adults who, as babies, infants and young children, were denied interaction with caring women (mothers, grandmothers, aunts, other “mother” figures), as a group scored about 20 points lower on IQ tests than adults who, as babies, infants and young children, were encompassed by interaction with caring women. This 20 point difference was found to be resistant to remediation and in fact irreversible.

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:11 pm

Rather unfortunate then that our Society scorns as "benefits abusers" those girls who choose to make their career out of raising a family instead of stacking supermarket shelves.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:16 pm

From that longitudinal study’s findings, a reasonable person must conclude that it is to society’s benefit to put in place whatever needs to be in place to ensure that society’s babies are encompassed by caring women. By the way, caring men don’t cut the mustard.

Why is it to society’s benefit? Other longitudinal studies have found that (1) the average IQ amongst long-term incarcerated persons is significantly lower than the average IQ for the general population-at-large, and (2) the average reading level amongst students who engage in age-inappropriate, intensity-inappropriate in-school violent behavior is significantly lower than the average reading level for the general school population-at-large.

I’ve seen no research findings concerning this next item. Following a logical train of thought from the “caring women” longitudinal study’s findings, and also intuitively, it seems a reasonable conclusion that the quality of interaction provided by encompassing caring women has an effect, positive or negative, on the oncoming adult. In my view, based upon personal experiential knowledge, this conclusion is valid.

by boatlady Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:42 pm

'caring adults' - a baby's or child's care giver does not have to be a woman - men can be nurturing too

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:52 pm

boatlady wrote:
'caring adults' - a baby's or child's care giver does not have to be a woman - men can be nurturing too

The longitudinal research study findings were that caring women are key to an about 20 point irreversible adult IQ. The study found that it must be caring women, gender specific, not caring men. Your phrase “caring adults” is accurate as long as the caring adults are women.

These findings are valuable to those who wish to act in the best interests of their children. My children, from the time they “got here”, were encompassed by caring women. I acted with quiet, relentless intent to ensure that this was so. My children are now all adults; now, when I am encompassed by my adult children, I am encompassed by eloquently expressed intelligence.

I unashamedly and freely offer this advice to any adult with infant children who desires that her/his children grow into their greatest potential adult intelligence: Encompass your children with caring women as soon as they “get here.”

by boatlady Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:52 am

Rock - I'm not familiar witht the research you cite - perhaps you can provide me with a reference? Thanks

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:49 am

boatlady wrote:
Rock - I'm not familiar witht the research you cite - perhaps you can provide me with a reference? Thanks

I wish I could. I learned of this longitudinal research study long before the Internet age. I tool notes, including a full reference. Given the number of my residences since I last put my hands on those notes, if they still exist, they could be stuffed in nooks or cranes of (by count) eleven apartments and houses.

More than three and one half decades ago, I took a graduate class in which this research was exposited and discusses. The longitudinal study took place somewhere in Russia and began during the early 20th Century, in the 1920s (I believe), sometime after the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The study tracked two groups of orphans from early infancy through adulthood over a number of decades. Infants of one group were placed in “politically correct” orphanages wherein they were provided all necessary physical care but were intentionally denied personal nurture by caring women. Infants of the other group, the control group, were placed in traditional foster homes with caring women. If I remember accurately, this might have been a horrible experiment to prove that “the Soviet way”, which de-emphasized families, was superior to “the Western way.”

I hope that helps. If you find it, please let me know.

Post note: Another unrelated study found that women talk to babies far more frequently than do men. It’s been awhile since I saw that study, and, since it wasn’t in a class, I took no notes to lose. For whatever reason, “three times as frequently” sticks in my mind.

by boatlady Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:14 pm

See, I think current research, based on more recent social arrangements does show that there's little difference between male and female care givers in terms of nurturing ability and outcomes for children.
Bowlby's research, carried out in the aftermath of WW2 was, although a perfectly good piece of research, somewhat biased in favour of getting woment out of the workplace so men returning from the war would have jobs.
The research you cite seems to make the assumption that 'caring' is an activity of women, and doesn't explore gender-defined roles in the USSR, which I suspect were similar to those in the West (i.e. child care was defined as a solely femal activity)
I'll have a look around - see what I can find in the way of more recent research to refer you to.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:50 pm

Political correctness insofar as gender bias towards men most likely had no effect on the study findings. The USSR was actively trying to put women in the workplace, and such findings would have been contravened that objective.

The research findings concerning significant gender differences in frequency of communication are more recent, if that means anything, which I do not believe.

Anecdotally, I was nurtured by several caring women. By so-called “objective” measures, my demonstrated intelligence “blows the roof off the sucker.” Each of my children was nurtured by several caring women. When my children are around me, the breadth and depth of their exhibited intellectual abilities “blows my socks off.”

Going back a generation, some of the caring women that nurtured me also nurtured my mother, her female siblings, and her female first cousins, some of whom were also among my female nurturers. All of these nurtured women who nurtured me are highly intelligent.

Longitudinal study findings + harmonious anecdotal evidence = pretty damned good case. East Texas and eastward saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

by Shirina Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:37 pm

The study tracked two groups of orphans from early infancy through adulthood over a number of decades. Infants of one group were placed in “politically correct” orphanages wherein they were provided all necessary physical care but were intentionally denied personal nurture by caring women.

There is the flaw in the study. One group of infants was NOT surrounded by caring or nurturing men. They were simply denied nurturing by everyone. Therefore, the study is actually comparing apples and oranges.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:21 pm

Shirina wrote:
The study tracked two groups of orphans from early infancy through adulthood over a number of decades. Infants of one group were placed in “politically correct” orphanages wherein they were provided all necessary physical care but were intentionally denied personal nurture by caring women.
There is the flaw in the study. One group of infants was NOT surrounded by caring or nurturing men. They were simply denied nurturing by everyone. Therefore, the study is actually comparing apples and oranges.

It’s easy to dismiss valid research findings. It’s a bit more difficult to go behind the numbers and discover causative factors.

by tlttf Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:38 pm

A study carried out 35 years ago would bear no resemblance to a study carried out now. 35 years ago families could still survive with one wage earner, so any nurturing adult would by default be a female. Back then nobody would have thought of including the male as he would be working. Biassed research gives biassed results.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:53 pm

"35 years ago families could still survive with one wage earner"

"Survive" being the operative word. People accepted a lower standard of living in the late 1970s, when Heath gave way to Thatcher. Then everyone saw an opportunity to own their own home, watch adverts for the dream lifestyle on colour telly, and the advertising genie was out of the bottle.

I want it all! I want it now!

by **moonbeam** Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:29 am

I absolutely agree that parents need to be - SHOULD be - actively involved in their children's education.

My son is 10 now, but I did read to him when he was young enough to be read to. So did his father. Since he's been in school, I have consistently volunteered my time there, at least one day a week. I've done small reading groups, graded papers, done other projects the teachers have asked for, as well as assembling the weekly "Friday Folders". I do ensure he does his daily requirement of reading (30 minutes) and that he does his homework. I am extra tough on writing assignments.

He does watch cartoons, but we also watch shows that allow us to discuss nature, biology, history, law, or other "real life" things that further education. It's the same with video games. Some for fun, but some for learning.

I do emphasize to my son that education is important to his future and I intend to continue to do so.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:13 am

Children are grateful to receive attention from their parents, whether for educational or recreational purposes, even correction, rather than being regarded as part of the furniture.

Be aware of how manipulative some kids can learn to be. A "faddy eater" is playing control games on his Mum.

by boatlady Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:02 pm

Or maybe on his dad - recent thinking doesn't so much emphasise gender differences and I think probably young men are increasingly directly involved in child care.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:59 pm

Circumstances alter cases, but I doubt whether many "Dads" readily respond to emotional blackmail.

by boatlady Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:03 pm

Yes they do - you should look at some of the current literature on gender and attachment

by Guest Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:49 pm

boatlady wrote:
Or maybe on his dad - recent thinking doesn't so much emphasise gender differences and I think probably young men are increasingly directly involved in child care.

oftenwrong wrote:
Circumstances alter cases, but I doubt whether many "Dads" readily respond to emotional blackmail.

boatlady wrote:
Yes they do - you should look at some of the current literature on gender and attachment

Authors of “the current literature on gender and attachment” have failed to interview me. If they had bothered to ask a few questions during the interviews of me the failed to perform, these authors might have discovered fundamental, critical differences between females and males insofar as “gender attachment” is concerned. Among the findings that, by failing to interview me, these authors did not find might have been the following truths.

Women and men are different.
Women and men are not equal.
Boys and girls are different.
Boys and girls are different.

Many failures of current educational systems stem from failure to (1) know these truths, and (2) implement policies and procedures that take these truths into account. Each such failure dooms a child to adult imprisonment in a cage not of her/his creation.

by astra Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:01 pm

I know of 3 children in 3 families, living with parents, who are using the moral blackmail they used in infancy. These "kids" are now 25 ~ 35 years old. (A common theme is the parents are NOT allowed to spend ANY of THEIR OWN SAVINGS without the "kids" permission, lest it devalue their inheritance!)

I am sure this is not the only place this is happening

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:51 pm

The case is strengthening for kicking the fledglings out of the nest when they are old enough to vote and/or get shot in the service of their Nation's armed forces.

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:35 am

The case is strengthening for kicking the fledglings out of the nest when they are old enough to vote and/or get shot in the service of their Nation's armed forces.

Heh, not in this country. The trend is for kids to go to college then move back in with their parents after graduation. The reason being is that college is so atrociously expensive (tuition costs are rising faster than anything else in America, including health care) that college grads simply cannot be financially independent while paying off student loans on an entry-level salary.

Does a parent hold any responsibility in the education of their children? Chart-resize

Does a parent hold any responsibility in the education of their children? Chart-resize

by boatlady Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:36 am

Rock
While not wanting at all to challenge your position as fount of all knowledge and wisdom, which seems to be based more on prejudice than on any actual evidence beyond your own experience, I do feel that the issue of gender bias is very germane to this discussion and would refer anyone with an open mind to a fairly full review of recent research by undertaken by Biblarz and Stacy and published in Journal of Marriage and Family Feb 2010. This is freely accessible via the internet - sorry I don't know how to post a hyperlink.

While not sharing your dogmatic certainty, they do have the benefit of pieces of research carried out within the last 10 - 20 years, which arguably more accurately reflects current circumstances and social realities.

This research seems to show that there are in fact very few differences between male and female parenting abilities, but that differences in parenting 'styles' seem much more to reflect social roles undertaken within the family (e.g. mothers who stay at home are more likely to provide most of the nurturing, simply because they have more contact with the child)
Sadly, as you point out, they did not interview you, but perhaps the fact that they did look at a lot of possibly more relevant material than your opinions will encourage you to have a look at their findings.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:52 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPGQoZbIPqk

(how to add a hyperlink to your forum post.)

by boatlady Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:21 pm

OW thanks for the information - I'll check it out, but due to my block when it comes to learning new computer lore it may be some time before I'm competent Laughing

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:06 pm

You can simply type out an EXACT copy of the hyperlink, but if even one character is mistyped it won't work, because computers are stupid and can't guess what should have been copied.

If you are looking at a hyperlink on your screen, simply use the mouse (or pad) to highlight the first letter (which will normally be 'h') and holding down the left-hand mouse button run along the line of words to the end of the hyperlink then let go of the mouse button. The hyperlink should then be highlighted and you can use the RIGHT button of the mouse to click on it.
This brings down a sub-menu on your screen, and you must click on the word 'copy'. That's all for now.
Get out of that screen and into the one you are going to type a message on.
When you get to the part where you wish to insert the hyperlink (or straight away if that is going to be the whole of the message) RIGHT-click the mouse button, click "paste" and the copied hyperlink will appear as if by magic. Complete the rest of your message if any, and send it.

That's all folks.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:32 pm

boatlady wrote:
Rock
While not wanting at all to challenge your position as fount of all knowledge and wisdom…

One cannot challenge spmething which does not exist.

boatlady wrote:
… which seems to be based more on prejudice…

Prove your statement.

boatlady wrote:
… than on any actual evidence beyond your own experience…

Prove your statement.

boatlady wrote:
… I do feel that the issue of gender bias is very germane to this discussion and would refer anyone with an open mind to a fairly full review of recent research by undertaken by Biblarz and Stacy and published in Journal of Marriage and Family Feb 2010. This is freely accessible via the internet - sorry I don't know how to post a hyperlink.

Because you feel it doesn’t make it so. That being said, gender bias is real and often appropriate.

I am excluded from female restrooms and dressing rooms; I should be excluded from female restrooms and dressing rooms. That’s discrimination, that/s gender bias, and that’s appropriate. I remember a news story about some idiotic male that demanded his right to access female restrooms in public venues. Perhaps he didn’t understand the appropriateness of female bias in this instance.

About six or seven years ago, during a traffic stop on Interstate 30 in far East Texas, the driver of a “dirty” van (loaded down with illegal drugs), a former inmate determined not to go back to prison, beat the holy snot out of a small town female cop. The beating was caught on the officer’s dash cam; it was brutal and sickening. The female cop was interviewed in her hospital room. She looked terrible. The female officer’s husband, a deputy sheriff of the county in which the small town is located, was also interviewed. He was a “Bubba”, a good 6’4” 250 pounds of muscle. The ex-con woman beater had been apprehended soon after the beating and was in county lockdown with “Bubba” as one of his guards. There was a point in the interview at which “Bubba” expressed a desire to take off his gun belt and lock himself in a room with the woman beater. Each of us watching agreed that, had “Bubba” made the traffic stop, homeboy would have thought twice before balling up his fists. Should there be gender bias in selection of cops who make traffic stops? Does zeal to remove gender bias justify the female cop’s hospitalization?

In May of 2011, Osama Who Swims With Fishes was taken out by SEAL Team 6, all of whom are males. “G.I. Jane” notwithstanding, no female has ever completed SEAL training. Gender bias? Yes. Built-in gender bias. Very few humans could complete SEAL training, but every single human that has done so is male.

I watch Law & Order SVU. Of course it’s fiction, but it occurs to me that female detectives are much better equipped than male detectives to investigate sexual crimes. I would wager that at least 90% of sexual crimes involve female victims. One extremely important aspect of investigation is interviewing victims; I would also wager that female detective are far superior to male detectives in this critical area.

boatlady wrote:
While not sharing your dogmatic certainty…

Prove that I have “dogmatic certainty.”

boatlady wrote:
… they do have the benefit of pieces of research carried out within the last 10 - 20 years…

If research was conducted from 1992 until now, you accept it; if the research was conducted prior to 1992, you reject it. Sounds like age bias to me.

boatlady wrote:
… which arguably more accurately reflects current circumstances and social realities.

Definitely age bias.

boatlady wrote:
This research seems to show that there are in fact very few differences between male and female parenting abilities…

My on-the-job research shows in fact that there are distinct and crucially important differences in male and female parenting abilities.

boatlady wrote:
… but that differences in parenting 'styles' seem much more to reflect social roles undertaken within the family (e.g. mothers who stay at home are more likely to provide most of the nurturing, simply because they have more contact with the child)

My mother, my aunts, my grandmother, my great-aunts, and my great-grandmother worked. My wife works. Her mother, her aunts, her grandmother, her great-aunts, and her great-grandmother worked.

Working mothers and working fathers have pretty much equal contact time with their children. The “social norm” in Black Texan families has included working mothers as long as I can remember.

boatlady wrote:
Sadly, as you point out, they did not interview you, but perhaps the fact that they did look at a lot of possibly more relevant material than your opinions will encourage you to have a look at their findings.

Until they interview me, or people like me, they will not discover, and thus they will not know, what I know. That’s not surprising; social researchers often ignore things that don’t “fit” their templates.

by Sponsored content