Conflicted: potentially tiger mum

[Hereforthebeer]

I'm on AIBU to get some home truths

My DCs are primary. They are both really capable and doing well. My initial view of primary school as an outsider was that it was all about being happy and secure.
I don't always make them do homework, I mainly do the reading required but if we have activities, they miss it. I sometimes miss spelling tests and generally am aware of whats required but also want them to love learning and so am sensitive of when I think they need a break/dvd night. So basically i encourage learning, within reason.
Recently, i've been thinking perhaps this is wrong. They are essentially under achieving even though they are only just out of nappies and I should make them always do their best, even if i sit over them, they should always do what is required even if they are knackered and I should be more 'tiger', more competitive.
WWYD/WDYD?

[Colby43443]

Tables and reading require regular practice everyday. DD for example has a little wigwam tables placemat at breakfast and I or dh will test her from that every morning during breakfast (we make it a game). At first she used to look at it but now knows her tables up 5. Similarly I read to her every night, no matter how tired she is, nothing major: a mr men book, or a chapter from Roald Dahl/Harry Potter. She's nearly 5 and so far is further ahead than I was with my tiger father.

[MuseumOfCurry]

No one is saying it has to be little or no parental involvement. But don't make the kids chances to succeed overwhelming dependent on their parents ability to help them out with homework.

They already are. It's impossible to eliminate enthusiastic parenting from the predictors for success.

Also, all you have to do to see how and what your kid is doing is take out his/her books and look at them and talk to your child?

My children don't bring home text books. I don't see very much outside of, well, their homework.

[LittleLionMansMummy]

We didn't have homework until senior school. We achieved very well at an inner city state comprehensive. This is because the single biggest indicator of academic achievement is parental engagement and the number of books in a home, not the amount of homework issued at age 5 onwards.

My parents never sat with us and oversaw homework. They turned up to parents evening, listened to the teachers and spoke with us about areas needed for improvement - from 11yo onwards. They read to us at bedtime from babies until we could read ourselves. They spoke to us meaningfully every day, found out how our day was, if any anything was worrying us, took time to answer all our questions fully and honestly, fostered a sense of wonder in the world around us, encouraged us to ask questions and find out answers etc.

My sisters and I, and the vast majority of our friends who likewise did not get homework at primary school, are fully functioning, successful and intelligent people who have achieved well at school and in life since. I simply do not recognise the correlation between homework for primary aged children and academic achievement at ages 16 to 21.

A parent who takes an active interest, praises their child for trying hard, does stuff with them outside of school/ work hours, encourages them and steers them in the right direction is what is needed, not endless homework which often only disadvantages the children whose parents are not engaged in their learning in the first instance.

[MuseumOfCurry]

We didn't have homework until senior school. We achieved very well at an inner city state comprehensive. This is because the single biggest indicator of academic achievement is parental engagement and the number of books in a home, not the amount of homework issued at age 5 onwards.

I don't agree with homework at 5. I think it makes a lot of sense to have 20 minutes by the age of 8 or so, though.

It's impossible to unpick the benefits of homework from the benefits of parental involvement, because where there is parental involvement and no homework there will almost certainly be some parentally-engineered substitute to fill the void - certainly in the context of 'modern' parenting.

It is also impossible for me to believe that once children start with more complex subjects that there is no benefit from (for example) a 1-hour lesson at 10am, followed up by a 20 minute revision exercise at 6pm. What happens between the time that it's taught at school and the time that it takes the form of homework that makes the former useful and the latter useless?

Even with a 1-hour after school sports club, my 10 year old has eaten dinner and showered by 5.45, which leaves 3:15 of free time in the evening. Is it really so mean for him to have to do 45 minutes of work?

[Londonmamabychance]

greemginger I'm sorry bit some small
Kids, especially some small
Boys, really have ants in their pants, and forcing them to sit still and do loads of homework early on achieves nothing other than making them resent learning.

It's like you can't understand that what's my hard for you may be hard for some people. Not everyone is the same! And secondly, there is still
Absolutely no prove that homework is necessary to do well. Zero, nothing at all,
Other than assumptions .

[5to2]

DD1 is in Y7 and does dance classes 3 times a week that are 2/3 hours at a time. She has a bite to eat after getting home from school and is straight out to the class afterwards. Doesn't leave much time for homework but she is managing it all so far.

[GreenGinger2]

I had 3 with ants in their pants including one with Sen. They all managed get to do the paltry amount of homework expected from them throughout primary. An hour a week us perfectly possible for the vast maj. Not sure why you'd base policy making on a tiny minority.

Schools do focus on tables in school however kids aren't robots so many don't pick them up instantly. It often takes regularly practise and home is an ideal place for it. I posted re the benefits of tables and there is stacks of evidence over the huge benefits of reading. The more you read the better you get.