|
Post by jolovespiggies on Mar 2, 2015 19:08:04 GMT
I think fostering a kiddy is lovely, you can make up for so much they they have missed. If i were younger and fit, I would consider it.
Hugs JO xx
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Mar 2, 2015 19:52:45 GMT
We have some friends who foster and it sounds like they're well supported. It'd be depressing to think you were offering as caring, loving home and be rejected because of the age of your bath tub - ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by bootygurl on Mar 2, 2015 23:22:00 GMT
IVF takes out the natural selective steps sperm takes on its journey to the egg therefore weaker sperm can get to the egg that naturally wouldn't make it to egg. This leaves weaker genes producing the infant. I've seen decrease in mental capacity, increased allergies, slowed muscle development, motor skills etc. One child who I cared for was a coworkers child and she was IVF conceived and she was almost an entire 6 months behind mentally then kids her age. At 2 she was not talking or walking, able to hold a spoon or even properly two hand hold a cup. No other explanation to it then that it was weak genetics. Other extremes I have seen are obese children to very physically healthy parents, odd gestation time (premature and overdue) seems to confuse the body I think when you implant the egg manually. I just have a family history of infant and fetal development problems and I don't want those increased. Everyone wants to blame autism on things like drugs during pregnancy, vaccines, food hormones but no one looks at how many children with mental/intellectual disabilities were conceived by IVF. IVF has increase over the years along with many of the common problems children are facing. I just don't want to play God either. If my body and his body are not meant to combine to make a child then its meant to be that someone else makes me a child (naturally) and I will feel blessed either way! I'm in Canada and sadly I don't think our system is much better for foster homes. I do think we have more permanent foster homes that work hard to keep children safely placed for life. And they are funded to help the foster families feed and clothe the children.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Mar 3, 2015 10:00:40 GMT
That's very interesting - is there any evidence (even anectdotal) to back up your experiences or is it not an area that's been subject to much research?
Although natural selection certainly leaves a lot of health and development problems in that don't suit any of us practically or genetically, I can see that by overriding the body's selection processes, there's also the potential to increase certain problems.
Having said that, we have quite a few friends who have kids from IVF and I've certainly not seen any evidence in most of the kids - only one has unfortunately had some quite serious health problems with her sons, which doesn't put the odds above the naturally conceived children in our experience. We also have friends who found themselves unable to conceive and just accepted it wasn't meant to be rather that going for any sort of treatment (a reaction which interestingly seems to be more common in nurses/ doctors).
I'm very interested in the increase in autistic disorders - and how much of it is a genuine increase and how much is down to increased awareness and diagnosis. I know plenty of adults who would have been diagnosed with Aspergers if they went through the school system now, but at the time were probably just seen as a being a bit eccentric in some of their behaviours or as just not having great social skills. None of the kids I know now who are at varying points on the spectrum now were conceived by IVF. When our kids were little, there was the whole palaver about the onset of autism being possibly related to one of the childhood vaccines. We looked into it and weren't remotely convinced about the link, so went ahead and got the jabs, and a while later it turned out the guy who had claimed there was a link stood to make a massive amount of money for the alternate individual vaccines he was recommending and the research was complete nonsense. Terrible.
I watched an old Louis Theroux documentary the other night called 'America's Medicated Kids' (or something) and it was about the enormous amount of labelling with mental disorders and subsequent medicating that goes on in some places. They showed a young kid who was already on a massive amount of meds having being labelled bipolar, ADHD, ODD (oppositional defiance disorder - that was a new one for me) and autistic. Whilst I don't doubt the kid needed some help (whether it was medicinal or behavioural), I couldn't agree that drugging him out of the 'undesirable' behaviours was the way to go. It seemed like these labels were being tagged on far too easily and dominating the kid's identity and life. There was also no evidence that the meds to 'treat' it were safe to use on kids at all. Who knows how they might effect his health in the long run, or even his fertility and what gets passed to his kids? I can understand that some things are so serious you have to forget the future risks, but they spoke to a few doctors and the prescriptions for some quite low level behavioural disorders were doled out pretty matter of factly - it made the parents feel it was a perfectly fine way to deal with it rather than questioning if it was the right thing.
Of course there are many valid cases for medication, and it changes some people's lives, but I just feel like the whole way we see differences in how people cope with stuff is too easily becoming medicalised. In some ways maybe that helps people get practical and behavioural help, in other ways it just whacks a label on lots of kids who might not benefit from having it there.
Our lives are much more insular than they've ever been now people move around more (away from extended family), have smaller families and there's less freedom for kids than there's ever been. I'm sure that change in how we live plays a part in terms of what we feel is acceptable behaviour and how much we see, react to and analyse stuff in our own little units. It's certainly a complicated and interesting topic (well I think so, but you've probably all nodded off now haha?!).
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Mar 3, 2015 16:03:21 GMT
You hit on so many great discussion topics, Bean. When daughter was first diagnosed with ADHD, she was put on Ritalin. It wasn't very advanced, so she took on pill in the morning, before school, and it lasted about 8 hours. That meant she got through the school day, then became a raging monster as the Ritalin wore off after school. All the focus and attention she had during the day was totally gone, when it was time to do the homework, or to do anything around the house. Even if she wanted to do something, she lost focus and did other things. But the withdrawal was the worst time. She went from happy to screaming to crying to happy and all over the place, in less than an hour. It was exhausting. Her father really couldn't deal with it, so tended to give her her way, instead of braving the horrendous temper tantrum he would get for saying No. I braved the temper tantrums when he wasn't home, but when he was home, he overrode me most of the time. He just wanted it to stop, but the results aren't all that great. When she took Ritalin this last time, she was much calmer, more focused, and more quiet. She is very loud, but hears fine. I think it's just the level of stress that builds up as volume. She was never officially coded for dyslexia, in school, as the tests the school had for it weren't conclusive, and the school didn't know how to combat it. Best to ignore it and go with ADD. Sadly, that's often the way schools approach problem children, if they don't just put the children in detention constantly, so they regular classroom teachers don't have to deal with them. I do think there is a major movement in the US to code all disruptive or underperforming students with some problem for which they can take meds. There is no movement toward providing different teaching environments, so students who don't learn best through lectures, blackboard work and homework, can have a different teaching approach. I realize that would mean way too many classrooms and teachers than taxpayers are willing to fund, but I think it's possible to include a whole lot of different teaching methods in one lecture. If a teacher is going to write important notes on the board, why not put them in a flow chart for those who need that visual, and verbalize them in a way that those who need a specific verbalization get that, as well. The students who learn easily without help, will get the information anyway. I also think US pharmaceutical companies push the drugs. They developed the drugs for the students who really needed them, now they want the profit of selling as many drugs as possible. It's generally put to parents that, if there's even a chance their child could be slow in school, acting up in school, or generally not the best student, give them a medication that will increase their chance to excel. What parent doesn't want their children to excel! It's a mind game for drug company profits Interesting, Bootygirl, as I'd never thought about IVF not stopping the weak sperm from reaching the egg. You're right that our bodies have biological methods to protect against that, and those wouldn't be present in IVF. As for the long term effects, I'd like to see documented studies, as those might help improve the IVF process. I totally applaud adopting a child who might otherwise never have a good home. If that suits you better than IVF, go for it, and good luck
|
|
|
Post by bootygurl on Mar 3, 2015 23:15:40 GMT
Well I've always adopted pets instead of getting one from a breeder I guess I should take my own advice with adding a human child if I can't have one myself. I don't believe there has been much study on the intellectual affects of IVF. But yes there is a huge increase in medicated and labelled children but as a childcare worker I see the flaws all too easily. It starts with lack of funding for the institutions, stems to lack of additional education for teachers and care takers, to over crowded rooms, to school intake age being dropped to 3.5yrs on average starting kindergarten. Instead of when I was younger it was 4 minimum by that December you must be turning 4, not 4 by end of school year. Also now pre-K is just prep for Kindergarten, kindergarten is just prep for grade 1 etc...so really kids are not doing age appropriate work therefore burning out brain power faster and becoming increasingly agitated with school and desk work. A 3.5yr old does not have the capacity to sit for more then 20 mins doing plain mind work. They need to move and learn by touching, smelling, creating not just writing ideas. I believe that stems to as old as 3rd grade! I remember lots of handson work when I was in grade 3. And there was only 1 kid in my class who was even remotely behind. Whereas by the time my younger brother got into school there was much more desk work and homework by grade 1! He was diagnosed with ADD as well and my mom refused to medicate him with a fairly new drug at the time (Ritalin) and asked for him to be given his pace to work, had his eyes checked and he did a bunch of intellectual tests and he came out just to be a tactile learner so desk work was very hard for him to just copy from a board and have it stick. We used to make up songs for him to learn things. I remember one spelling assignment we made a song about the words. It was a silly mess but he passed that spelling teat giggling
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Mar 4, 2015 14:13:42 GMT
I totally agree that the increasing pressure on getting kids educated earlier and earlier works against so many kids. The nursery my kids went to was great - they just played really, and while the games and activities always taught them stuff, it wasn't forced and anyone who wasn't interested could do something else. Those who did want to crack on with more structured learning were able to and were supported well. Some countries do it that way until 7 years of age.
But here school starts at 4 and while some kids are raring to go, others haven't got any interest in structured learning. But because of government targets and OFSTED inspections the teachers have no choice but to persist and get them to do certain tasks and show how they're progressing in different areas. So many kids get put off reading and maths through having something forced on them - it'd be much better to leave any targets or standards until they were a few years older, and just concentrate on exploring the world in their own way and doing what interest them. But the trend is going the other way and now nurseries have to meet certain targets in terms of what they've taught the kids. I also hate the fact they work out the average ability and progression of a child and then try to make all kids fit that mould. Averages are averages because some kids score higher and some lower, and whilst I agree with getting the best out of every kid, that's not the same as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
The songs sound fun, bootygurl! We do all just learn in different ways. I appreciate it's difficult for teachers with a class of 30 to put things in different ways for different sorts of learners, and we have the same problems in that the funding isn't always there to support the kids who do need additional help. That said, I know that for ADHD, the therapies are often behavioural - finding ways to channel the behaviours that make it difficult for kids to sit still or pay attention. They might be given a stress ball to fiddle with during lessons so they can be doing something whilst sitting still, or they might have scheduled run around times where they can alternate focus with using up energy - it's about finding what works for them. There are all sorts of tailored learning plans going on at our school. Drugs are really a last resort for anything that is mainly behavioural.
3piggles, the withdrawal from the Ritalin sounds really hard work, and it must have been difficult to work out what was best if getting her in a state where she could pay attention at school meant you had to pay for it later at home. Glad that she doesn't get that kick back if she takes it now. Kids can be hard work at times anyway, so I take my hat off to anyone who has to cope with these extra pressures, especially if you don't have a good support network.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Mar 4, 2015 16:14:18 GMT
Bean,Ritalin is now in many dosages and can be taken more than once a day. The concern at the time was that taking another dose after school would give her the withdrawal when she ought to be sleeping and getting rest. Hubby is on Concerta. He tried several different doses, and we both agreed on one. He and I could see that he was much more normal, but also more focused, on that dose. That wasn't an option for daughter, when she was young. She isn't taking the Ritalin anymore. Not sure why. When I was in school, we had three classes for each grade. The advanced class, the average class and the slow class. That was the 50s approach to dealing with children at different levels of learning capacity and socialization. It wasn't any better, as the "slow" kids were always ridiculed by the rest of the kids. Most of the children in the slow classes had remedial reading and math help, which further stigmatized them. We didn't have kindergarten in the 50s, but did by the time daughter needed it in the 80s. She attended pre-k and kindergarten, and I thought both were good at helping socialize the kids, help them deal with being away from home and having to obey someone other than their parents, and they did learn basic counting, colors, and other things that were age appropriate. They were definitely ready for first grade, but those schools were private, so not all children could attend. Those who did attend tended to make those who didn't attend seem really unprepared for first grade. So educators started Readiness, which was a public pre-first grade. It was more first grade than kindergarten had been, whole school day, ride the bus, etc., but less first grade than the mainstream got. Those kids were labeled as slow, and ridiculed by the other kids, so Readiness only lasted a few years. It seems as if educators are constantly looking for some magic formula that works for all children, rather than admitting and dealing with the fact that all children are not the same. Square pegs in round holes, as Bean said. Until educators stop teaching to get the students to pass tests, and start teaching for the students all to learn as much as they can, whatever way they can, I don't think there will be many improvements. Drugging the students so they don't disrupt the class certainly isn't the way to do it. I like your analogy about adopting, Bootygirl If you can provide a wonderful home to a child who needs one, everyone wins
|
|
|
Post by bootygurl on Mar 5, 2015 5:03:55 GMT
Here in Ontario, honestly I don't know how many provinces or states do it yet, but we now have Early Childhood Educators in kindergarten classes which helps teachers who studied general education understand younger children and how to adapt the learning materials to different levels. I did a placement in College in a kindergarten room and I was baffled how little the teacher knew about how 3-5 yr olds learn. She was just given a book of standards of what the children should know by the time they left her class. And sadly she had already come to the conclusion that 4 children (all 3.5 or just turned 4yrs of age) would be held back...in kindergarten which to me is just stupid! Setting them up for failure. She'd just teach it to them twice and they would HAVE to do better next year! Now I don't mean to toot my own horn. But I did write a letter to several county school boards and the Ontario government about this happening and from word from my classmates I wasn't a unique experience. Most of us were given a group of 2-5 children who had already fallen behind (in only 4 months of schooling) to adapt the materials to help them catch up. It was a task but many of us felt we made a difference. And within 5 years they initiated the ECE in the classroom programs! Children are doing better (word from friend's with kids who rave about how fun school is, how nice it is to have 2 teachers. The first few years were a struggle to convince teachers the ECEs were not just there to babysit the younger kids but to work as a team to have EVERY child achieve higher. I had parents when I was in my placement want to talk to me about their child rather then the teacher as I could better articulate what the child needed and little things they could do at home like an alphabet placemat at dinner that they could interact with. Say "We're having chicken for dinner, chicken starta with....." and have them find the letter and go around their plate like that! Even have family photos on the mat "S" is for sister or Sophia parents enjoyed being given feasible activities to do at home. Many came from a low class neighbourhood and couldn't afford to go buy phonics books and programs fo computers etc so a home made placemat was much more personal and affordable. I remember a young boy, turned 4 in December, I started in January and he was just back from Christmas break, he had a single father, was the youngest of 5 siblings under 7yrs old! Mom took off (mental problems) the dad was very illiterate himself and notes going home were no help! I gave him photo detailed activities for all the family to participate in. Making the whole family work together to help the young one catch up, I think it helped with all the children. They started adapting the activities to be age appropriate for all attendance was better all around. The kids came with better lunches, were cleaner, haircuts, attitudes were better. I thought the dad was going to cry my last day. I almost did when the wee boy hugged me to tight! He didn't say a word just hugged me for 5 minutes! Tearing up at the memory of this sweet little boy. He was one the teacher had already given up on and planned to hold back. I am ranting....but you get the idea of how an actually educated person on development is important. Teachers are taught a very broad development scale where ECEs are focused on infant -5yrs so they better understand how to adapt curriculum! ECEs are now required to get a license to teach so not just any person can step in as an early educator. Its a qualified professional!
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Mar 5, 2015 9:46:26 GMT
Sounds like you've done some great work and it's brilliant you're so passionate about it - I can imagine you, and others like you, will change many people's lives by really tuning into each person as an individual.
I watched a program on a group of illiterate adults - people who had gone through the system and never taken in the basics of how to read and write and were convinced they never could, despite wanting to. The teachers tapped into how they learned, and had them doing much more tactile tasks - for some they'd make the letters out of rope to familiarise themselves with the shapes, others would concentrate on the shapes of words to help them learn. All of them were doing brilliantly by the end of the course, by having it put to them in a way they could process - it was lovely seeing those lightbulb moments for people who had lost confidence in being able to do something and to see them reading out loud at the end.
3piggles, what you said about streaming made me think of the way they do it now in loads of places. When I was at school there was a top, middle and lower set for each subject. Not sure how stigmatising it was to be in the lower sets, I genuinely don't remember anyone making a big deal of it, but am not daft enough to think kids can't be horrors! Some people must have felt it was causing problems as now they hardly ever use those terms anymore - the sets get names which might be random colours, shapes or even names of people like Mandela, Teresa and Gandhi. In my experience it takes the kids about 5 seconds to work it out, and makes an even bigger deal of it all because it seems like the school don't want people to know which makes them want to know! I'd be interested to know if it's led to any positive outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Mar 5, 2015 15:15:29 GMT
Bootygirl, that was a wonderful rant, and I'm glad you did it There is hope, and you've proven it. The biggest problem is bottom line budgeting for municipalities. If there is an unusually high snowfall, as we had this year, and the highway department budget runs way over, every other department, including schools, is cut by a certain amount. Not to pick on libraries or parks, but the library and parks/recreation budgets can be cut by a lot more than police and teachers. Tax and building offices can be closed for a couple of days a week, and opened at night a couple of days a week, instead. But as soon as anyone has to cut a budget, the first budgets they cut are the most important ones, so the taxpayers will be more willing to pay more money for the next year, or they just cut everyone equally, so no department feels abused. When daughter was in 4th grade, the school language/speech pathologist was available 5 days a week. The next year, that budget was cut to 3 days a week, and by the following year, 2 days a week. This was the person who had to approve any coding or special considerations for students, so that process went from taking a week, to a month, to several months, while the children suffered. Bean, when I was in school, they were "the stupid kids." By daughters time, they were "the sped kids," for special ed kids. They didn't get picked for teams on the playground at recess, never had cool things shared with them, etc. Kids can be quite monstrous, but I think what's worse is that kids are learning to fit in, to be part of a hierarchy, and to work to change their place in the hierarchy. So if the IN kids pick on the slow learners, and everyone wants to be accepted by the IN kids, everyone joins in picking on the slow learners. Those who want to rise in the hierarchy will work harder to snub the slow learners, so the IN kids will notice them, and invite them to be IN. Parents can preach all they want, but the parents are at the school on a daily basis, trying to fit in and trying desperately to not be added to the group that is constantly picked on. WE have some thing called Montessori schools, which are supposed to cater to each childs ability to learn. I don't know how successful they are, but if they are successful, and it can be done, people shouldn't have to pay high tuition for their children to attend.The teaching process should be used in the public schools everyone supports with their tax money.
|
|
|
Post by bootygurl on Mar 5, 2015 19:04:56 GMT
We have Montessori as well. I don't agree with the method 100% as its catered to wealthy families who's children already have a higher percent chance of success rate anyway being from upper class families. We have Merrymont and the Vanier clinics as well which serve lower class families in times of hardship. For instance sometimes during a gruesome divorce children will actually live at these centers for a few weeks while their parents work things out. It gives children stability ans safety, and gives the parent a chance to cope with what's happening without the added stress of guiding a child through something they themselves are struggling to manage. These are grossly underfunded programs and many people who work there tireless day and night make minimum wage with no benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Mar 6, 2015 10:17:54 GMT
We have some Montessori nurseries, not sure about schools. A few friends think the nurseries are great as they're very child-led. Not sure how it works in terms of fees.
There are definitely more different types of school emerging here - Steiner schools seem to be on the up too. I know a few people they've suited and others who really feel it impacted on the choices they had available when they left school (there's not always so much focus on the academic stuff, so those who aren't motivated to learn to read, spell or add up well can come out without basic qualifications and knowledge). There are so many rumours and such strong feeling about the schools (on both sides) that it's hard to get a balanced view! I think they vary from school to school so much (especially in how closely they follow the original teachings) that one person's experience of it can be massively different to another's. Not something which has ever appealed to me from what I've learned, but we couldn't afford it anyway!
The Merrymont and the Vanier clinics sound great - good to have something like that for the kids who need it, but a shame that as with every valuable service, money just gets cut and cut.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Mar 6, 2015 16:17:17 GMT
Montessori is private, and as expensive as any private school. Not available for anyone below upper middle class income, which is sad. I have no idea how well Montessori students assimilate into the other educations, if they have to go to a public school for high school, or if they are prepared for college. Here in the US, students have to apply to colleges, and those with the best grades from the highest rated schools, those with the most extracurricular activities and sports, are going to get chosen first. Since I don't think Montessori school have sports teams and extracurricular clubs, I'm not sure how that works for the kids.
It's my understanding that Montessori basically have no class designations. Each student is prepared in the best way for each students, and at each students pace. So there is no finishing one year and not getting promoted to start the following year with all the classmates. It's open schooling with basic age divisions only.
Most private schools have small classes, so a lot of individual teacher attention and assistance. Most public schools have large classrooms, 25 students or more per classroom and per teacher. No aides, as they cost money the taxpayers won't fund. It's up to the parents to help their children, or pay for extra help for their kids, outside of school. Parents who aren't well enough educated to help their kids and/or can't afford tutors, give the kids an unfair disadvantage that shouldn't even be a consideration with all the money we spend on education.
We had a piano in each classroom, and a storage closet with art and music supplies. We didn't have a dedicated music room and art room. Maybe that money should go to funding trained aides who can help the kids, instead.
|
|
|
Post by bootygurl on Mar 10, 2015 22:46:10 GMT
So to weather again....instead of the usual 2 feet of snow I have 2 inches of water all around my house! My poor dogs nearly drown in the backyard.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Mar 11, 2015 7:44:26 GMT
Bet that makes for lovely clean floors indoors too!
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Mar 11, 2015 15:54:36 GMT
Ugh! That's a lot of water, and a lot of wet feet tracking it into the house. We're having what's affectionately called mud season, and will we don't have dirt outside this house, we certainly did at the last house. I totally understand the constant fight against what gets tracked into the house! I hope the water levels drop, soon!
|
|
|
Post by jolovespiggies on Mar 11, 2015 19:00:26 GMT
Oh Bootygurl love, I hope you managed to get rid of it all.
Hugs JO xx
|
|
|
Post by bootygurl on Mar 12, 2015 1:36:13 GMT
Thankfully the water stayed outside for the most part. We redid our drainage last summer so this spring will be the true test if we did it right. So far very little water inside other then wet puppy feet. Its messy but its been so lovely out!
|
|
|
Post by jolovespiggies on Mar 12, 2015 19:03:00 GMT
I am glad to hear that hun, water damage is awful.
Hugs JO xx
|
|