From: Christine Taylor-Butler <kansascitymom_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:56:55 -0600 (GMT-06:00)

Thanks Ed, The dysfunction at the suburban level is horrendous. It's almost l ike some parents "assume" their children will learn by osmosis and put "les s" emphasis on home instruction and place the burden on the school and libr ary system.&nbsp; My husband and I are both college interviewers for our al ma maters to our "day" jobs. Here in KC, private school parents just throw more money at the problem then wonder why their child can't get into MIT, f or example. (ummm - because "reading is fundamental"....sigh) I spent time with a local psychologist who does a lot of "cognitive" therap y work and has a mostly suburban client list. He told me that when he admin isters an IQ test, he does a battery of them over four hours - some meant t o be boring, some redundant.&nbsp; There are some tests were children from the suburbs naturally score higher than their urban peers because they are exposed to more things (language, cultural activities, etc.) as part of the ir lifestyle.&nbsp; Hence when we test kids on sta ndardized exams we "assum e they're smarter because the standardized tests are skewed towards their e xperiences when in fact many are struggling academically in school.&nbsp; T heir parents are wanting some outsider (doctor, teacher, librarian) to fix the problem, but don't look at what actions they might take in their own ho me. No one correlates reading with future success because it's assumed to b e a natural skill the child will just "pick" up.

So I hear you.&nbsp ; And appreciate the clarification.&nbsp; It makes perfect sense and exactl y describes what we found when we transferred the kids to private schools.& nbsp; Many of those parents were even more "hands off" than the public scho ol parents because the act of paying tuition is the surrogate for parental involvement......Christine
Received on Sun 06 Feb 2011 11:56:55 AM CST