Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
ParticipantOn the subject of demographics…
Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.
I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.
I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.
You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.
ParticipantOn the subject of demographics…
Not all 40-59 year olds have kids in high school or older.
I’m a “senior mom” – 48 with a 6yo and 8yo. And while I’m one of the older moms at Curie – I have plenty of company of moms and dads in their early to mid 40’s with kids in 1st grade.
I have quite a few friends in Scripps Ranch. Several are in the same boat as me – older moms with young kids.
You can’t determine the age of the child based strictly on assumptions that parents reproduce only in their late 20’s early 30’s… too many exceptions to that rule. Even more so when the parents are highly educated with strong careers.
Participant[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.
The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]
UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]
The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.
The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)
To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.
So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.
As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.
Participant[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.
The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]
UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]
The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.
The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)
To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.
So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.
As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.
Participant[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.
The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]
UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]
The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.
The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)
To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.
So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.
As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.
Participant[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.
The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]
UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]
The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.
The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)
To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.
So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.
As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.
Participant[quote=gn][quote=UCGal]The teachers there may do a fine job of differentiation, etc… and not want the hassles.
The budget allotment is NOT a motivating factor for schools to have a GATE program.[/quote]
UCGal, can you elaborate on the 2 points you made above ?[/quote]
The first point. The teachers may already be providing the things that GATE program teachers are supposed to provide – differentiation of teaching based on ability for example. If a child is a whiz at math – have them go deeper into that subject, challenging them. If they’re weak in a subject, work to bring them up. Treat kids as they should be – of varying needs. (IMO this shouldn’t be limited to gifted kids!) The problem is that some teachers assume that because a child is competent at a subject, they don’t need the challenge, and spend their time on the kids who are weaker. What has happened is the bright kids then they get bored and that’s a potential recipe for failure. The GATE program is theoretically supposed to address the academic and social needs of the brighter kids. The GATE program trains teachers to deal with the spectrum – including the high performers, not just the kids with learning disabilities and IEPs.
The second point – funding for the GATE program is crappy in SDUSD. Only $35/student for the entire school year. AND (this is big) because of the budget issues, the school does not have to spend the GATE funds on GATE services/programs. It’s up to the school site councils and budget councils to make sure the money is spent on GATE stuff (if that’s the preferred use determined by the principal and council.) Theoretically, this year, GATE funds could be spent on stuff unrelated to academics – like crepe paper and balloons for parties. (Just tossing that out as a random example – not saying this is actually happening.)
To have a GATE program – the teachers who teach GATE clusters have to have training and certification. That puts a burden on the administrators of the school to get these teachers GATE certified.
So… the three schools that have chosen not to implement GATE programs may have felt that they’d prefer to spend their teacher development money on things other than GATE specific training/certification for their teachers.
As I said – it’s not an issue that I would necessarily use to determine which school boundary to buy into… but it’s worth investigating.
ParticipantWealth is being able to afford your lifestyle and still have money in the bank.
I’ve known a few folks who fit the “millionaire next door” stereotype… leading moderate but comfortable lives – with the freedom to do whatever they want. My dad was one of these. Lived in a 2000sf tract home in UC – but circumnavigated the globe several times in his retirement. With lots of shorter trips in between these 3-4 month trips. He paid cash for it all. If he wanted some new electronic toy, he had the money to buy it with cash. But he wore clothes that were less than fancy, the house was well maintained, but not upscale, he rarely ate out.
Yet I would consider my father wealthy because he had total financial freedom. He may not have had a beach front mansion nor mercedes, but he had everything he needed for a very content life with no debt and cash to do the things he was passionate about: 4wd trips to baja and travel around the world.
I aspire to his wealth. I bought the house from him – it’s still not fancy – but suits our needs. I’m working on getting the cash reserves and mortgage retired to live the wealthy part – no worries about money and freedom to travel or do whatever my passion is.
Fancy stuff doesn’t represent wealth. Freedom from worries about money is wealth.
ParticipantWealth is being able to afford your lifestyle and still have money in the bank.
I’ve known a few folks who fit the “millionaire next door” stereotype… leading moderate but comfortable lives – with the freedom to do whatever they want. My dad was one of these. Lived in a 2000sf tract home in UC – but circumnavigated the globe several times in his retirement. With lots of shorter trips in between these 3-4 month trips. He paid cash for it all. If he wanted some new electronic toy, he had the money to buy it with cash. But he wore clothes that were less than fancy, the house was well maintained, but not upscale, he rarely ate out.
Yet I would consider my father wealthy because he had total financial freedom. He may not have had a beach front mansion nor mercedes, but he had everything he needed for a very content life with no debt and cash to do the things he was passionate about: 4wd trips to baja and travel around the world.
I aspire to his wealth. I bought the house from him – it’s still not fancy – but suits our needs. I’m working on getting the cash reserves and mortgage retired to live the wealthy part – no worries about money and freedom to travel or do whatever my passion is.
Fancy stuff doesn’t represent wealth. Freedom from worries about money is wealth.
ParticipantWealth is being able to afford your lifestyle and still have money in the bank.
I’ve known a few folks who fit the “millionaire next door” stereotype… leading moderate but comfortable lives – with the freedom to do whatever they want. My dad was one of these. Lived in a 2000sf tract home in UC – but circumnavigated the globe several times in his retirement. With lots of shorter trips in between these 3-4 month trips. He paid cash for it all. If he wanted some new electronic toy, he had the money to buy it with cash. But he wore clothes that were less than fancy, the house was well maintained, but not upscale, he rarely ate out.
Yet I would consider my father wealthy because he had total financial freedom. He may not have had a beach front mansion nor mercedes, but he had everything he needed for a very content life with no debt and cash to do the things he was passionate about: 4wd trips to baja and travel around the world.
I aspire to his wealth. I bought the house from him – it’s still not fancy – but suits our needs. I’m working on getting the cash reserves and mortgage retired to live the wealthy part – no worries about money and freedom to travel or do whatever my passion is.
Fancy stuff doesn’t represent wealth. Freedom from worries about money is wealth.
ParticipantWealth is being able to afford your lifestyle and still have money in the bank.
I’ve known a few folks who fit the “millionaire next door” stereotype… leading moderate but comfortable lives – with the freedom to do whatever they want. My dad was one of these. Lived in a 2000sf tract home in UC – but circumnavigated the globe several times in his retirement. With lots of shorter trips in between these 3-4 month trips. He paid cash for it all. If he wanted some new electronic toy, he had the money to buy it with cash. But he wore clothes that were less than fancy, the house was well maintained, but not upscale, he rarely ate out.
Yet I would consider my father wealthy because he had total financial freedom. He may not have had a beach front mansion nor mercedes, but he had everything he needed for a very content life with no debt and cash to do the things he was passionate about: 4wd trips to baja and travel around the world.
I aspire to his wealth. I bought the house from him – it’s still not fancy – but suits our needs. I’m working on getting the cash reserves and mortgage retired to live the wealthy part – no worries about money and freedom to travel or do whatever my passion is.
Fancy stuff doesn’t represent wealth. Freedom from worries about money is wealth.
ParticipantWealth is being able to afford your lifestyle and still have money in the bank.
I’ve known a few folks who fit the “millionaire next door” stereotype… leading moderate but comfortable lives – with the freedom to do whatever they want. My dad was one of these. Lived in a 2000sf tract home in UC – but circumnavigated the globe several times in his retirement. With lots of shorter trips in between these 3-4 month trips. He paid cash for it all. If he wanted some new electronic toy, he had the money to buy it with cash. But he wore clothes that were less than fancy, the house was well maintained, but not upscale, he rarely ate out.
Yet I would consider my father wealthy because he had total financial freedom. He may not have had a beach front mansion nor mercedes, but he had everything he needed for a very content life with no debt and cash to do the things he was passionate about: 4wd trips to baja and travel around the world.
I aspire to his wealth. I bought the house from him – it’s still not fancy – but suits our needs. I’m working on getting the cash reserves and mortgage retired to live the wealthy part – no worries about money and freedom to travel or do whatever my passion is.
Fancy stuff doesn’t represent wealth. Freedom from worries about money is wealth.
ParticipantI think Captcha was referring to the time Walmart got busted with a cleaning crew of illegal immigrants. Worse, they’d literally locked them in a store overnight. (Fire safety issue).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48612-2005Mar18.html
I personally don’t shop at walmart because I don’t like their policies towards the hourly employees. Perhaps they’ve fixed it since the book Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, came out… but I was horrified that low paid hourly workers were required to work off the clock, were given info about how to apply to medicare programs, WIC, etc. Why would they provide that information in the employee breakrooms if it wasn’t something the employees qualified for? In other words, many of Walmart’s employees are living at a poverty level. Hard to call that living wages.
I’ve shopped at super-walmarts – mainly when on roadtrips and it was the only thing readily available from the freeway. At home, I choose to shop at Costco – where they pay wages high enough that many employees are still there having started in college. They have their degrees – but like their employer and work enough to stick around for 20 years or more. (Check the badges of the costco workers – it has the number of years.)
It’s a personal choice. Not forced on anyone else. But given options, I won’t shop at Walmart.
ParticipantI think Captcha was referring to the time Walmart got busted with a cleaning crew of illegal immigrants. Worse, they’d literally locked them in a store overnight. (Fire safety issue).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48612-2005Mar18.html
I personally don’t shop at walmart because I don’t like their policies towards the hourly employees. Perhaps they’ve fixed it since the book Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, came out… but I was horrified that low paid hourly workers were required to work off the clock, were given info about how to apply to medicare programs, WIC, etc. Why would they provide that information in the employee breakrooms if it wasn’t something the employees qualified for? In other words, many of Walmart’s employees are living at a poverty level. Hard to call that living wages.
I’ve shopped at super-walmarts – mainly when on roadtrips and it was the only thing readily available from the freeway. At home, I choose to shop at Costco – where they pay wages high enough that many employees are still there having started in college. They have their degrees – but like their employer and work enough to stick around for 20 years or more. (Check the badges of the costco workers – it has the number of years.)
It’s a personal choice. Not forced on anyone else. But given options, I won’t shop at Walmart.
-
AuthorPosts
