|
0 members (),
241
guests, and
37
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
For emergencies, a "Hear me now and believe me later" approach is acceptable. Yes - but far more likely to be followed when the people being directed know their respectful questions are typically listened to answered respectfully. Then they know the authority is directing ... authoritatively ... based on a real emergency and a good understanding of what needs to be done. The traditional view is that children owe their parents obedience not just because the parents are older and wiser but because the children are dependent. No emergency needs to be invoked. In our house we don't eat food X because it is against the family religion. We don't need to justify this restriction to our children, and in fact it cannot be logically justified. Why should some children not eat pork, others not eat beef, and others not eat meat at all for religious reasons or because their parents believe for non-religious reasons that eating meat is wrong? It's because the parents are putting the food on the table, for which the children should be grateful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
The traditional view is that children owe their parents obedience not just because the parents are older and wiser but because the children are dependent. No emergency needs to be invoked. In our house we don't eat food X because it is against the family religion. We don't need to justify this restriction to our children, and in fact it cannot be logically justified. Why should some children not eat pork, others not eat beef, and others not eat meat at all for religious reasons or because their parents believe for non-religious reasons that eating meat is wrong? It's because the parents are putting the food on the table, for which the children should be grateful. Feeding your children is sorta required by law, so I'm not sure why they should be grateful you didn't violate their legally-protected rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
The students are told to show their work and we all know how gifted kids are with showing work. So you have a situation where the children told to do something that makes no sense to them. Multiply these two numbers and show your work for example. When a student asks her why and her response is "because I said so" that's not teaching them anything. There's a thin line between acting like an adult and acting like a dictator. We teach our children common sense so if someone said go jump off that bridge we want them to be able to use that common sense and not do it right? Well in a gifted child's mind , at least with my child, it doesn't make sense to show his work. If the teacher takes a moment to explain to the kids why its important to show their work they would be inclined to do so. I'm not talking about the kid who asks "why" when you say for the hundredth time its time for bed we are talking about a group of kids who have this inner need to understand the importance of what they are doing.
Yes we get a lot of push back from this one teacher and it stems from the internal investigation from earlier in the year and yes there are personal issues. But my question is...why should we force these brilliant minds to be quiet and conform when allowing them to be gifted children will help them grow up to be independent members of society who can change the world? Imagine if Martin Luther King or Hawkings was told "because I said so" and they never questioned anything? While I agree in theory, I also would like to point out that what to ONE individual is a critical existential kind of question can often come off as "tedious" (as another poster so helpfully termed this behavior, say, in meetings with another adult even) when this behavior holds an entire group of people hostage to the Q&A session day after day. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that gifted children are still, well-- children.With so, so much of what that entails. If you are trying to get three children out the door in the morning, is it really acceptable to have to patiently EXPLAIN to your gifted four year old that being cold isn't the ONLY reason why putting weather-appropriate clothing on is necessary in the moment? Sure, that might be a discussion for later-- fine. But not in the moment, when you simply need your child's cooperation and trust in YOUR judgment as the adult in that situation. Generally, what we've found is that our DD tests others-- to see whether or not they are logical and reasonable. If so, then she tends to follow their advice and is more cooperative than not. If not, heaven help that person with requests that DD can't see any reason for. It's a trust thing for her-- not an autonomy one. Still. There are reasons why I forbid her to engage in some activities or behaviors-- and those are not necessarily reasons that she is yet equipped to fully grasp. Believe me, we had that discussion just this morning with our nearly 16yo daughter, re: why she will be BUYING her first car from us, regardless of whether or not that car is "cute" or "what she would have chosen" (it's safe and reliable), and she will be making regular (significant, but not 'painful') payments to us for two years. Oh yes, this is a life-skills and arc-of-development strategy on our part, and we've been open about it. It's still an exceedingly gracious deal for her, as we'll be covering maintenance until she moves out, and insuring her... and we are selling her that vehicle for about 15% of its actual value, and she will own it outright at 18yo. She still doesn't really get it. She will thank us someday. But that day is not today.  LOL. Today is about "why should I??" and "I don't WANNA..."
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 517 |
Just a thought maybe it's a valuable life lesson that some people will require things from you (hoops) and if you can't get an explanation from that person you can always look elsewhere. Maybe your ds can research the reason why showing work may be necessary ( or why he shouldn't have to). I know there have been times when I have not known the why of things until the proverbial hit the fan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Yeah, let me also add that my daughter would be having a MUCH easier time of things in college if someone had laid down the law with her re: showing her work in greater detail a lot sooner than, say, calculus.
She's internalized that she shouldn't HAVE to, see.
The real reason for showing your work is so that another human being can follow along using the same method of problem solving that you have chosen.
It's also grooming for higher levels of instruction where that is essential to helping students find and remediate problems with their own understanding and problem-solving process. Without being able to see exactly where a student's process derails, all you have is "this velocity question is wrong." That's not very helpful if the student's problem is that s/he wrote down the wrong mass, versus not differentiating correctly or something like that. KWIM?
It's about forming good habits young. And yeah, it's kind of excessive when we're talking about math facts that educators are also hoping that students will gain automaticity over-- because really, 'explain why 2 + 2 = 4' would be a pretty challenging thing for most adults, and ditto for a child who has one-to-one correspondence and math facts to 10 down.
But "explain" relative to simple geometry and algebraic problem solving lays the foundation for communicating more complex ideas, and proofs, etc.
How capable is the average 6 or 8yo of 'getting' that series of ideas? Probably not very-- not even if s/he is PG.
It's just a lack of perspective and life experience.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
The real reason for showing your work is so that another human being can follow along using the same method of problem solving that you have chosen. My explanation to my DD is that this is done so that, if you get the answer wrong, the teacher can follow your methodology and find out exactly WHY it went wrong. Since DD is the type who can easily transpose a sign or a digit, this works in her favor... the teacher can verify that she understands the concept, it was just a stupid mistake, and partial credit is awarded. It was just this week that DD expressed how she can't wait to go further in math, because at present her problems have so many steps, and she hates having to document them all. Yeah... about that...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
The traditional view is that children owe their parents obedience not just because the parents are older and wiser but because the children are dependent. No emergency needs to be invoked. In our house we don't eat food X because it is against the family religion. We don't need to justify this restriction to our children, and in fact it cannot be logically justified. Why should some children not eat pork, others not eat beef, and others not eat meat at all for religious reasons or because their parents believe for non-religious reasons that eating meat is wrong? It's because the parents are putting the food on the table, for which the children should be grateful. Feeding your children is sorta required by law, so I'm not sure why they should be grateful you didn't violate their legally-protected rights. Because food, shelter, and clothing are bought with money earned by the parents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
The traditional view is that children owe their parents obedience not just because the parents are older and wiser but because the children are dependent. No emergency needs to be invoked. In our house we don't eat food X because it is against the family religion. We don't need to justify this restriction to our children, and in fact it cannot be logically justified. Why should some children not eat pork, others not eat beef, and others not eat meat at all for religious reasons or because their parents believe for non-religious reasons that eating meat is wrong? It's because the parents are putting the food on the table, for which the children should be grateful. Feeding your children is sorta required by law, so I'm not sure why they should be grateful you didn't violate their legally-protected rights. Because food, shelter, and clothing are bought with money earned by the parents. Yeah, but you're supposed to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Bostonian, you lost this one. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 219
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 219 |
Its your responsibility as a parent to feed, clothe and care for your child. It is the teachers responsibility to make sure that child learns...and we know not all kids learn the same way and some need to know the validity of why they are being asked to do something.
|
|
|
|
|
