Vicki and I have been having some great discussions recently about this topic (sparked by my experiences as a tutor, as well as our own history raising daughter Tammy). Should parents assume that their kids will learn everything they need at school, or is it their job to supplement that education in some way? Are there clear distinctions between what the school system "owns" and what lies with the parents (the proverbial "book learning" versus personal ethics, for example)? Do kids who get extracurricular training from their folks have an unfair advantage over those who don't? And what's the right balance, from a parent's point of view, between purely social or physical activities (play dates with other kids, soccer or hockey, hanging out with the neighbourhood crowd) and more mentally-stimulating pastimes like learning new card games, solving puzzles, being quizzed on what they're supposed to know or anything else that a parent might do to gauge and/or nudge along their child's mental development?
I'd love to hear thoughts from those in the blogosphere. This is a subject that is increasingly occupying my brain of late, and in addition to reading up on it (as I have been), I'd love to hear from the peanut gallery out there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Those are some big questions. :)
I'll only give a short answer to the first couple.
No, I don't think parents should assume kids will learn everything at school and it's probably in their best interest to supplement their education in some way. That said, it can be as simple as asking what they learned that day and discussing it with them.
As for who "owns" what aspects of learning, my gut feeling is that there is little need for a clear distinction, save for perhaps religious beliefs. I suppose if I had kids, I might have a different opinion. :)
Post a Comment