<p>keil, my daughter also has to correct my grammars on multiple occasions and I don’t have a Phd. But I did visit the principal office( when I had to fight for D1) more often than I care to admit. So limited English was never a problem.</p>
<p>Heh, that’s what of my favorite xkcd’s. But I’ve enjoyed your passion Keil. Maybe you can run our schools!</p>
<p>See Keil? Two votes already for school board!</p>
<p>^^^It may be simply a personality difference, then, although I’ve observed similar behavior in other first-gen immigrant parents. (Curiously, the parents who were first-gen born in America are just as proactive, if not moreso, than the typical highly educated suburban parent.) I don’t think my parents have ever been in the school office for a reason other than asking for directions or meeting with my college counselor (once, which I set up).</p>
<p>To further clarify my position on the semi-derailment of this thread: I don’t believe that advocate parents are being unethical by pressuring the school administration to make an exception. They, after all, only want the best for their child. However, I do believe that it is unethical for the school administration to give in to such demands; it is their public duty to provide equal access to the best education possible, and while that is impossible for a large number of reasons, they should ethically still try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(rubs hands briskly) Of course, in our district, or at least at this particular school, students were only considered for math acceleration if the parent requested it. As far as I know, even if a kid is doing great in math, 99% on the general standardized tests, there’s no machinery put in place to ask the parents if they’d like to accelerate the child. So by your standards, Keil, it’s still an unfair system.</p>
<p>In our district, the “secret math track” really was hush-hush and established to accomodate a few extremely pushy parents–not truly genius children. The non-secret accelerated track was that those students who at the end of sixth grade scored near perfectly on an algebra predictive test, would be placed into algebra in 7th grade, followed by geometry in 8th. The normal year for students to take algebra in our district is 9th grade. There were also those who took algebra in 8th grade, or only one year earlier instead of 2 years earlier. In addition, there was an advanced math class available in elementary school, which used to involve busing the participants (about 4 per school) from all the different district schools to one central location for the class. But having been in that special class was not a pre-requisite for getting into the accelerated track in middle school, though I’m sure it helped.</p>
<p>However, beyond that there were 4 kids in the district who were advanced still one more year ahead of that, such that they took algebra in 6th grade. Since the students already had to get nearly a perfect score to enter the accelerated track (I think you were allowed to make one mistake), it wasn’t as though everyone else scored an 80 and these prodigies scored a 100 and that’s how they differentiated them from the others. My S was never administered an additional test. I also questioned the parents and was told that they had pushed for an additional advancement. How did that happen? Well one particularly ambitious woman worked in the school and pulled some strings, and then told a 3 of her pushy friends about it. She knew how much it could help her son’s high school GPA to get a bigger jump in math, but was smart enough to know the school wouldn’t do it just for her.</p>
<p>I’m a pretty savvy parent, but would never have suspected there was a possibility for more acceleration, since my child was already receiving expensive, special accommodations in that he was among that select group being bused in elementary school, and then in middle school had to walk to a different building for math also.</p>
<p>How did it turn out? Well, not to be mean, but the lady’s son’s performance in high school clearly showed he was not especially talented in math–didn’t even make NMF. He did get the chance to take more AP’s than everyone else.</p>
<p>SlitheyTove - Oops. I read your next paragraph (of that post) as saying that there was an auto-ask mechanism, with 99th percentile as the qualifying bar.</p>
<p>
Kielexandra, nothing was “offered” to us. Not one single thing. I’m sorry you don’t understand that. </p>
<p>My son wanted to take algebra. He – not me – was the initiator of the idea. I did help, after he came to me and asked for my participation. In order to get what he wanted, we had to take a team-based approach and work with others to implement a plan. </p>
<p>I’m sorry you don’t understand that concept. But I see things the way Dad-of-3 does – what you advocate is essentially communism. </p>
<p>The problem isn’t that you missed out on an algebra class and saw some other kid get it. As ihs76 pointed out, often the “secret” opportunities are simply a matter of private invitations sent to students who meet a certain standard. But the standards may not always be strictly academic – there may be opportunities that arise where the people doing the selection value EQ as much or more as IQ or GPA, perhaps because of the type of opportunity. </p>
<p>And there will always be circumstances in which opportunities will be extended to individuals simply because they expressed an interest. So if you really want something, its in your interest to let people know.</p>
<p>Keil, you’ll be happy to know that the reason we have the automatic 99%ile in policy for accelerated math is because I and a friend went to the school district and worked with them to get it instituted, after our children blazed the trail, so to speak. If we had not done that, and believe me it took some time, we would not have this policy and only the squeaky wheel would still be getting the grease. We did it because we could see that many students with less vocal parents would not receive the same advantages that our children had. Just what you are talking about.</p>
<p>I suspect most parents don’t have the time, the inclination, or the knowledge to go the extra step and that is why the inequities continue to exist. My experience is that school district administration/principals/teachers are perfectly content to not disturb the status quo.</p>
<p>
Keilexandra… self-advocacy is NOT about “defying” authority. The outcome for my son when tried to defy authority at school – which was frequent – was that he was sent to sit on a bench or in a hallway or in the principal’s office – and I never once questioned that. </p>
<p>Self-advocacy is NOT about objecting to or bending “rules”. There weren’t any “rules” in place precluding anything my kids ever got in school. There simply was some uncharted territory that my kids opted to explore.</p>
<p>calmom - You misunderstand me (yet again). Nothing was offered to YOU, but once YOU created an opportunity, that opportunity is available to be offered to OTHERS. I don’t mean to scream at you in all-caps, but I have no idea how to be any clearer in my words.</p>
<p>Great, your S wanted to take algebra, so you helped him do so. My point is that philosophically, I believe it unethical for the school to have agreed to your request/plan without offering this newly created opportunity to other qualified/“equivalent” students.</p>
<p>I read your reference to subjective factors like “EQ” as simply a euphemism for “let the school pick whomever it wants”–which, given their primary motivations, will result in “let the school pick whomever lobbies them the most.” Back to the problem of students with savvy parents gaining an unfair advantage that could be easily corrected (unlike so many other unfair advantages in life) by school policy. Corrected without forcing “no one” to accelerate, either–cf. the policy that ihs76 references. And I still think that Americans way overreact to any sort of societal equalizer as “communism.” Political/philosophical differences, yes?</p>
<p>My reference to “[defying] authority” was a facetious way of pointing out that some parents TEACH their children that your “self-advocacy” = defying authority. For example, my parents might approve of me asking the teacher to let me accelerate; if the teacher refused, that would be that. The teacher is an authority figure, and in their worldview, I have no business escalating the matter. Even if they agreed with me, they would simply chalk it up to the perils of bureaucracy and bad luck–nothing to be done, as a dutiful rule-abiding student/parent who doesn’t wish to cause trouble. Because causing trouble (which includes such actions as going to the principal if the teacher says no) = defying authority = BAD. I’m not saying that I agree with this equation, but it is in fact what I was taught.</p>
<p>If, for example, there are several math tracks set up, then there would be (in my cultural worldview) an implicit rule that you should follow said tracks. If you don’t wish to follow the expectations of this school, you are free to transfer/leave. Now I understand, after years in the school system, that such implicit rules are essentially enforced by peer pressure and designed to be bent by savvy parents and/or students. But I consider such policy unethical; either there should be an explicit, iron-clad rule about acceleration, or there should be an open policy that allows a child to accelerate as much as s/he can handle. Both policies have potential problems, but they are fair.</p>
<p>
Paint me cynical, but that sounds a lot like slipping under a plastic fence and claiming that you didn’t realize you were trespassing on private space because there wasn’t a KEEP OUT sign posted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s where you are dead wrong, Keilexandra. I didn’t nag or push or pressure. I simply asked. I didn’t ask for the high school course – that wasn’t even contemplated. I had no clue as to what the schedule was at the high school or whether there was room in a class for my son. What we did was simply go to my son’s principal and framed an issue: “son needs more challenge in math, is there a way that this can be accommodated?” </p>
<p>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that “self-advocacy” involves adversarial tactics and requires a pushy, persistent parent. It really doesn’t. Also - 90% of my communications with my son’s principal were by email – it didn’t require hours of time or extended meetings or intensive lobbying. Just a little bit of reminding. Probably around a half dozen emails sent back and forth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That depends on the administration you’re dealing with. My experience doing this was very negative. School officials made it quite clear that all students belong on the pre-determined track, and that the burden to prove otherwise is 110% on the parents. It was frustrating beyond belief, and we did indeed have to get adversarial, pushy, and persistent to get anywhere. And this was at a “good” school. If you haven’t had to do that, then count yourself as fortunate that you were dealing with reasonable people.</p>
<p>
No, EQ refers to emotional intelligence or maturity. Given that the arrangement made for my son required him to attend classes at a high school, and walk from that school unescorted to his assigned school – it is quite possible that the principal considered my son’s level of maturity and self-sufficiency as an important factor. </p>
<p>That <em>self-sufficiency</em> part is really important. The fact that my son could articulate his own needs and work effectively with the school administration, without my intervention, to resolve minor issues like squaring away the attendance records – was probably a factor that led the principal to be willing to work with the high school administration and algebra teacher to make the arrangements.</p>
<p>I completely agree with Keil. Once the opportunity is made available to one–regardless of how that came to pass–it should be offered to every student with the same aptitude. This is not socialism but rather an ethical approach to using taxpayer funds in the context of a PUBLIC school to equitably benefit as many students as possible–not just those whose parents form a special interest group.</p>
<p>Not all parents are created equal, even if they are equally persistent/pushy/savvy in their advocacy of their children. You have parents who are teachers in the district, parents who are PTO presidents, parents who are school board members, parents who are relatives of teachers and administrators, and parents who can give lavish gifts to teachers at holidays. One mom I knew volunteered 6 hours a day in the elementary school so that she could always get whatever she wanted for her child. Obviously, it is neither possible nor desirable that all dedicated parent advocates do the same as she. That’s why there need to be eligibility standards that are the same for everyone and are made known to everyone.</p>
<p>Mantori, if the algebra thing had required a fight, it wouldn’t have been worth it. We would have found another alternative. My son could have given up on the idea of algebra in the 8th grade; he could have transferred from his K-8 school to one of the middle schools in the district that offered algebra; we could have found an online course or checked the offerings of private tutoring services or the local community college. </p>
<p>I understand what you mean about a fight to get what a kid <em>needs</em> – such as specialized support for a kid with learning disabilities – but I don’t see enrichment or acceleration as a <em>need</em> that schools are required to accommodate, and at least in our state, the law doesn’t require that. </p>
<p>Perhaps part of our success came from the fact that we entered with the idea that we were seeking a privilege, not a right or entitlement – and that we were asking, not demanding. In general, I’ve always found that I get more from people in authority when I ask nicely and maintain a flexible attitude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I kind of agree with Keil. D1 was not gifted in math but rather in reading/writing. I fought with the principal/teacher/district and she also eventually was identified as a gifted kid( through a child psychologist) that was paid for by the district. So in the end, she ended up in a gifted class for math. Was that a good thing? I don’t know but the district had institute a different method of identifying gifted kids the following year.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have trusted most of my children’s teachers to assess IQ much less EQ. Neither of my kids were interested in discussing at great length the bland exploits of Little Bear, which they felt was demeaning for any self-respecting 2nd grader. Consequently, their teachers decided they had poor “literacy readiness.” Yet both started reading at age 4. As for EQ, I’ve known plenty of teachers who have little themselves. Puhleeeease.</p>
<p>My friend’s D was not given the AP textbook she needed to do her summer homework. Was told there weren’t enough books, but that they’d get more. She called, e-mailed, and personally visited the school throughout the summer, and even offered to buy it if the school would reimburse her. No luck. At last, her mother broke down and bought her the textbook. The mom really couldn’t afford it, but also hadn’t wanted to buy it for the principle of the thing; no one else had to buy it and the school is supposed to provide books. So the girl wasn’t able to finish all of the work before the start of school, so she asked for an extension in light of the circumstance of not having been given a book. Her request was denied and the D was told that if she hadn’t managed to get another student to share their book with her, then she didn’t have the EQ necessary for them to consider allowing her in the course anyway. Huh?? So just SHE needed EQ for AP Calculus? No one else needed to show they had EQ? The official policy only required an application and an “A” in pre-calc., both of which the girl had. Making EQ a stipulation will open a vile can of worms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you didn’t ask.</p>
<p>My kids did. </p>
<p>There was no “escalating” – there was no challenging any refusals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s not how it works in America. The American cultural worldview is that all things are possible, and that what isn’t expressly forbidden is permitted. (My daughter has restated that to, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” ) Americans celebrate innovation – our cultural heroes are entrepreneurs, explorers, and inventors. And that sense of possibility and opportunity is what brings many immigrants to America – so whatever their cultural perspective, many come here precisely so that they aren’t stuck in whatever “track” their government or authority figures have decreed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very good tip worth remembering and following in many situations. On a good day it might even get you past the White House secret service ;)</p>
<p>Nevertheless, even if you “ask nicely” and someone makes an exception for you (that will not be available to the next person who either doesn’t ask at all or asks in a not-so-nice manner), you were the beneficiary of an unfair exception. So what? That is life in America, where ‘all things are possible’.</p>