|
Editor of Editor of Author of
|
Welcome to these regular musings, meanderings, wonderings and wanderings by Wendy Priesnitz. Blog Archives Highlights - Natural Parenting
Learning by Heart – August 3, 2009 Misplaced Mommy Wars – April 9, 2009 In a well-time and well-aimed return salvo (accompanied by a press release claiming to “set the record straight”...apparently wars sell magazines), Mothering magazine Publisher Peggy O’Mara eviscerates Rosin’s “cursory review” of the breastfeeding research and points out that this is a case of misplaced anger.As Peggy notes, breastfeeding is not the problem. The problem, as I also point out in my Natural Life magazine article about feminism and unschooling, is the lack of respect and support for the work of caregiving, which includes breastfeeding, unschooling and other aspects of parenting. Rosin writes, “If a breast-feeding mother is miserable, or stressed out, or alienated by nursing, as many women are, if her marriage is under stress and breast-feeding is making things worse, surely that can have a greater effect on a kid’s future success than a few IQ points.” Perhaps. But the solution to such a sad situation is not formula – in the same way schooling isn’t the solution to our educational and daycare crisis. The solution is to fix the underlying problem. And that requires changing society’s values. Neither does the solution lie in escalating the war among women, of which, I think, Rosin is guilty. She disdains the culture of motherhood and natural parenting, describing mothers who “obsess about breast-feeding” – “the urban moms in their tight jeans and oversize sunglasses” sizing each other up “using a whole range of signifiers: organic content of snacks, sleekness of stroller, ratio of tasteful wooden toys to plastic.” Revealingly, she admits to breastfeeding her baby son – although not “slavishly.” Perhaps if she and other mothers felt that their role was more valued – and if they had more support from the men in their lives – there wouldn’t be the need for attitude on either side of the debate. Or maybe the debate could end. Posted: 2009/04/09 10:38 AM Missing
the Motherline – February 6, 2009 It’s
Bad Enough That They’re
Forced to Be There... – January 21, 2009 Those parents who wish to minimize the teaching of their children to become consumers should be alarmed and educated by this article. It describes techniques such as ads on free school supplies like book covers, bookmarks and locker calendars, in-school product sampling and advertiser-sponsored special events, such as assemblies or gym classes. There are even broadcast options such as ads on school bus radio and in-class TV. According to the article, popular products for this sort of advertising include DVDs, videogames, TV networks, fast food, toys and children’s books. School advertisers mentioned include McDonald’s, Disney, Wal-mart, Microsoft, Cartoon Network, Lego and the military. Because in-school campaigns have to be approved by local administrators, the author claims that is an endorsement of the advertiser, intended or not. Oh, if you want to do something other than fume, in
Canada, the Media Awareness Network has a
tip sheet about keeping schools commercial-free. And the U.S. organizations Commercial Alert and
Campaign or a Commercial-free Childhood are just two of those nasty consumer
groups that would like to see all advertising disappear from schools. Pink Princess Plague – January 12, 2009 I was in a couple of department stores while my youngest daughter was visiting at Christmas and was overwhelmed by the pinkness of the toy sections and the girls’ clothing sections. An article in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper wonders why toy manufacturers use so much princess pink in products designed for girls. Some researchers fear that young girls, brainwashed to respond to pink, are being encouraged to grow up too quickly and to become obsessed with body image and the stereotypes of what it means to be female. Sue Palmer, a literacy consultant and author of the book Toxic Childhood says that the marketing drive to force pink on girls has been so successful that speech therapists in the UK report that children can easily identify blue as just a color, but say “Barbie” when shown something pink. The solution now is the same as it was
for me 35 years ago: Go unisex in clothes and toys (cardboard boxes are great
toys and they’re brown!) Ensure your daughters retain their self-esteem and
encourage them to think for themselves. And if they – like one of my
daughters – end up liking pink, at least
it will be because of its color, not its stereotypes. Which Came First: the Baby Bully or the Adult Bully? – June 25, 2008 One person featured in the article is Meline Kevorkian, a Florida-based researcher and author who surveyed 167 educators and found that 25 percent indicated bullying occurs most in elementary schools. I have seen other research indicating that three-quarters of eight- to 11-year-olds have been bullied. According to Kevorkian, rationales for bullying at this tender age include wearing the wrong shoes or socks, not attending the right pop concert, having a smelly lunch or wearing bows in your hair. She says that this sort of aggression among younger kids is
often written off as a routine rite of passage. So are we normalizing abnormal
behavior? One parent quoted in the AP article notes that much preschool bullying
flies under the radar of harried parents, teachers and baby sitters. Harried or
not, do these people turn a blind eye because aggression is so commonplace in
adult society? Think of those ubiquitous sports parents screaming at their
offspring to succeed – or at least to hit their opponent – and those whose
sense of entitlement and competition fuels their need to spend thousands of
dollars on birthday parties for their two-year-olds, on sexy designer clothes
for their ten-year-olds, or on SUV-sized strollers for their infants (when they
could be using a less aggressive and more nurturing baby carrier instead). Ah,
yes, the wonderful socialization that homeschooled kids are missing. Children are People Too – May 2, 2008 There are many issues here, including public breastfeeding, women’s lack of support for other women, the polarization of feminists and mothers (who says you cannot be both?), and the egregious way we think we must separate work and family. In spite of the many responses to Robert’s blog that are prudishly anti-public breastfeeding, that is not what this kerfuffle is about. In fact, Robert, who describes herself as a women’s studies student who breastfed her own son, agrees. Her blog posting and many of the responses there and on other websites (lots by working women) are very clear that this is about the fact that children shouldn’t be full-fledged members of their communities. She said that women “have worked hard to be mothers and political leaders but today’s attitude seems to say that mothers have to be mothers all the time…I’m not a mother all the time.” As a journalist, business owner and activist, I took my young daughters with me wherever I went – to the lawyer, the printer, the accountant, trade shows, business meetings, political meetings and, yes, press conferences. I did that for many reasons, including my belief that they belonged in those places and that accompanying me there was part of their education. I did it from the time they were born until they were old enough to decide not to accompany me…and then, many times, they chose to tag along. They didn’t get in the way or “misbehave” – initially because attachment parented children have their needs met and later because they were interested in what was going on. I was not being selfish and my daughters were not being used as props. Their presence didn’t make me feel or behave any less professionally. They were not a distraction. They were safe. And they can trace their current levels of community engagement directly to those early life experiences. They also learned to choose work about which they are passionate and that work and life aren’t mutually exclusive. Instead of making second class citizens of children (which includes hiding in public washrooms to breastfeed them) as Tammy Robert favors, we need to affirm their rights as first class ones, as people rather than as people-in-training. That includes cultivating more humane and holistic ways of living and working, and finding ways to integrate children and their parents into workplaces. I don’t know or care if Amber Jones’ taking her baby to a press conference was a “publicity stunt,” although I doubt it. But if it was meant to provoke a discussion about the place of families and children in public life, then it was a successful one! Putting our babies on the shelf when they have become an inconvenience (or an embarrassment to certain people) or sending our older children to school when we can no longer stand having them around is no way to fix the deep malaise in our society. From children, we can learn to ask questions, ignore pretension, slow down, scramble across irrelevant or pretentious barriers, consider what is important in life and accept everyone, regardless of age, job or worldview. And yes, Tammy Roberts, you are a mother all the time, like
it or not. Should have thought of that earlier. Trusting
Teens to Make Their Own Education Decisions – February 25, 2008 Linda Franklin, President & CEO, Colleges Ontario says there is a general lack of awareness about the benefits of a technical or trades education, as opposed to a university one. “Our goal with ‘Obay’ is to use a tongue-in-cheek approach to begin to address this awareness issue, starting with parents, the group our research showed has strong influence when it comes to decision-making around post-secondary education. The message is to step back and find out what your children really want, and then look at all the postsecondary options together.” The Obay campaign, brought to you by the makers of “WhyBecauseISaidSo” and “NotUnderMyRoof,” is designed to remind parents that they should explore all the options – in many cases, their children may be more likely to find rewarding and fulfilling careers through college education and training. Unfortunately, research shows that by a margin of three to one, parents push their teens to attend university and one third also say they would be disappointed or embarrassed if their child went to college! So this advertising campaign includes copy like:
“Your kids should be allowed to make their own decisions, especially
when it comes to their post secondary education” and “Sure you want
what’s best for your kids, but when it comes to post-secondary
education, pushing them to do what you want isn’t right.” Too bad
these parents didn’t receive this autonomy message before they had
kids, but I guess it’s better late than never! Idle
Parenting is Responsible Parenting – February 19, 2008 The Telegraph piece was written by Tom
Hodgkinson who is editor of a quirky British alternative magazine
called
The Idler. (Google “Tom Hodgkinson” or “The Idler” and
you’ll find other essays on this same subject.) His parenting style
is motivated by one of my favorite DH Lawrence essays: Education of the
People, published in 1918. Lawrence wrote, “How to begin to educate a
child. First rule: leave him alone. Second rule: leave him alone. Third
rule: leave him alone. That is the whole beginning.” And the reason
the author feels this style of parenting works? Respect for the child
and trust in another human being. Trust is a word we use a lot in Life Learning.
It goes a long way. If you agree, you might want to bookmark The Telegraph
website because Hodgkinson will be writing a regular column there on
idle parenting beginning in March. The
Harm of Not Trusting Children – January 6,
2008 I don’t like war metaphors, but in a perverse sort of way, I can accept the newly coined term “Black Hawks,” after the military helicopter of the same name, which is used to describe those who cross the line to unethical behavior such as writing their children’s college admission essays. Yes, I’m told it happens. These are parents do more than hover at a safe distance; they actively intervene. Now, according to an article in the Guardian newspaper, helicopter parents are moving beyond tricycles and college exams to participating in the job market on behalf of their children. They write the resumes, go along on interviews, fight with managers about their child’s performance evaluations and try to participate in salary negotiations. That’s not caring; it’s meddling in someone else’s life and taking away their freedom of person! And it does a huge disservice to young people because it delays maturity, lessens self-esteem, undermines self-confidence and prevents the development of problem-solving skills. Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent in the UK views the rise of the helicopter parent as an indicator of an infantilization of society and the blurring of the boundaries between childhood and adulthood. He says we are witnessing the appearance of “kidults” or “adultescents” – people who are biologically maturing at an ever early age (which is another issue altogether) but are treated like semi-children by families and institutions (which are cancelling recess because it’s too dangerous). Furedi should have added the billion dollar industry that has developed as marketers exploit the natural fears of new parents (with money to burn) – selling everything from those highly questionable Baby Einstein products to kneepads for crawling babies, bullet-proof backpacks and books with names like Germ-Proof Your Kids. We need to think about the result of all this inappropriate parental control, this lack of trust in and respect for young people’s ability to learn, grow and act appropriately. These “kidults” are going to have to solve the serious economic, environmental and social problems their baby boomer parents have. If their families and their schools infantilize them in order to keep them safe – delay their development in order to allay adult anxieties – they won’t have been provided with the tools to solve those problems. They won’t even have learned how to keep themselves safe because they won’t know how to assess danger and make wise decisions. A story on this subject in my local newspaper quotes social work professor Michael Ungar from his book Too Safe for Their Own Good, about the risk the bubble-wrapping creates for kids. Some teens, he says, robbed of the inherent need for risk-taking and testing the boundaries, seek it out in dangerous ways like delinquency, substance abuse or running away. “Too much risk and we endanger a child,” writes Ungar. “Too little risk and we fail to provide a child with healthy opportunities for growth and psychological development.” Children learn by doing – and that means by
making mistakes, whether the mistake results in a skinned knee or a
wasted semester. The role of parents and the other adults in
children’s lives is to facilitate that learning in developmentally
appropriate ways. Are we helicoptering because we’re afraid to let go
or because we’re living vicariously through our children…or do we
just not know how to teach them to make their own decisions while
keeping themselves safe? Socialization, huh? – October 10, 2007
The researchers found that “disruptive” students – those with “attention problems” and a “diminished interest in school” – are most frequently targeted, supposedly having provoked their peers or teachers into negative behavior. An earlier report about the same research project, which was published in 2006 in Pediatrics, stated that “Many adults mention past incidences of verbal abuse by the teacher as the most overwhelming negative experience in their lives.” But Bregnan says we should be careful not to “lay
blame” on anyone. Parents are, instead, supposed to help their
children make new friends who will help “protect them from the
loneliness and depression that result from rejection and
victimization.” Funny that one of the main criticisms about
homeschooling is that children will miss out on the valuable
socialization experience that schools offer. Hah. Telling Us What We Already Know...Don’t We? –
September 6, 2007 And yet, a professor of psychology at the University Southampton was quoted in the press as saying that we now, for the first time, have clear evidence that mixtures of certain common food colors and preservatives (namely sodium benzoate) can adversely influence the behavior of children. Of course, the same guy noted, simply removing the additives from food would not prevent hyperactivity in children. Of course not. So does this mean that industry-sponsored
scientists will now suddenly agree with independent researchers about
something that has long been obvious to observant mothers? Don’t hold
your breath. The new research was apparently greeted with skepticism by the International Food Additives Council, an
Atlanta-based trade association.
In
Defense of Strong-Willed Children – August 6, 2007
It describes how, when he taught high school English, the best pupils he had were “the school-hating malcontents.” These students were, he maintains, way more interesting than those who did well – in addition to being brighter and more creative. Saner, he says. But they had a hard time because they were also the most disruptive. And often had been bullied, humiliated and otherwise mistreated a lot. Anyway, I recommend spending some time on Norm’s site reading this particular essay. If you’re an unschooler, you’ll nod in agreement with his comments and conclusions. If you’re the type who favors schooling, then I hope your mind will be opened just a tiny bit to the assumptions we make about children and schooling. You’ll also find out why Norm quit teaching school. While you’re there, I urge you to sign on to his
list of those vowing to “Stop the Hitting.”
The
Child Care Career – July 1, 2007
The NFCA/CCCMA agreement commits both associations to advocate for, among other things, parental choice through financial equalization factors and taxation by way of a model of a child care benefit voucher system, which could be used to purchase a variety of types of daycare or to support a parent who chooses to stay at home. I see this agreement as encouraging, but only the beginning of the end of the pursue-a-career-or-stay-at-home cultural and emotional battle zone that has been dubbed “the mommy wars.” One of the first volleys was launched a few years ago by law professor Linda Hirshman who wrote that privileged, educated women who choose to stay at home to raise their children are hurting themselves and other women. This idea that staying home with children undermines the advances of the last four decades of the women’s movement is the basis of much of the scorn and anger that has been heaped upon me and other unschooling/homeschooling advocates by other women. We’re letting down the side, so goes the argument. As Hirshman wrote in a controversial article in The American Prospect magazine in 2005: “A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one’s capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one's own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated, upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives.” As if nurturing the development of the next generation isn’t important work – perhaps the most important work of all! But then, if we think it is so important, why isn’t a capitalist society willing to pay – and pay well – for it? And so this devaluation of parenting over having a career continues. As one unschooling reader recently wrote to me: “My biggest struggle now as a mom is to get beyond the conditioning by our society that I previously bought into, that being a mother isn’t enough. That it doesn’t really matter and putting the kids in daycare and school and going back to work is the only way for me to make a *real* contribution to society...” And she asks, “What if [the women’s movement] had fought for the value we were already providing, rather than insisted we be allowed to behave like men?” Over my 35 years so far as a mother, I’ve often
thought that motherhood is a series of choices, sometimes quite
difficult ones. But thank goodness I have had choices. All parents need
to have choices as to how they live their family lives; perhaps this new
child care agreement is the beginning of a broader recognition for and
status of one of those choices.
Little Bits of My Mother…and Daughters – May
19, 2007
Recently, I stumbled upon some research that seems to put some facts behind the floating bits sensation – and reinforces the bond between mother and child. Apparently, cells can migrate from mother to fetus and remain there long after the child becomes an adult, a phenomenon that is called “microchimerism.” Lee Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, is studying the effect of these cells and whether it’s good or bad. The research results are mixed so far, with some experiments suggesting that maternal cells can produce insulin when a child develops diabetes. But other research suggests that these same maternal cells can trigger autoimmune diseases. That’s of particular interest to me, since my mother and I both have lupus. The reverse is true too. In addition to having some of our mother’s cells in our bodies, we apparently left some of our own behind in her bloodstream when we were born. Fetal cells appear in mothers’ organs long after birth and have even been found in the bone marrow of grandmothers. These fetal cells, say some researchers, have a role in healing disease. In one experiment, fetal cells migrated from the mothers’ blood to the disease sites (including thyroid, liver and cervix) and seemed to form healthy tissue. To complicate matters, some women may have three
generations of cells in their bodies – their own and some from their
mother and their children. So there’s an explanation for my floating
bits feeling. And there’s also plenty of support for my current task
of trying not to complain when somebody tells me that I’m just like my
mother.
Who are the Child Care “Experts?” – April 6,
2007
However, the most compelling part of this study is the finding that parenting quality was a much more important predictor of child development than was type, quantity or quality of child care. That is good news in light of a recent Canadian study authored by Dr. Fraser Mustard. As back-up for its recommendations for institutionalizing early childhood, the Mustard report blamed everything from substance abuse and illiteracy on a supposed lack of parenting skills. In an op-ed piece last week in the National Post newspaper, Kate Tennier, founder of Advocates for Childcare Choice, which favors funding the child rather than the daycare spot, quoted Mustard as saying that only about one-third of parents are highly competent, the rest are “OK” and “about 17 percent are godawful.” There will always be some parents who could use some help with parenting skills and/or community support raising their families (not to mention access to affordable housing, fairly paying jobs and so on.) But instead of shifting the responsibility onto institutions and thinking up Orwellian ways to screen children in order to slot them into ever-earlier formal learning environments, governments should be giving parents and children the respect they deserve. For starters, they could foster a culture of learning in every home, provide community and tax supports to parents who wish to stay at home with their young children, and encourage changes in workplace culture to include nursing mothers; young children; and career-track part-time, flex-time or home-based work. If we want to prepare the next few generations of
children for happy, productive, socially-aware adult lives, we need to
rethink many things, including our attitudes toward childhood. And we
need to decide who are the experts in regards to our children: the
children and their parents, or bureaucrats and politicians.
It’s OK to be an Introvert (except in school) –
April 1, 2007
Our society favors extroverts – and they apparently outnumber introverts by about three to one. They dominate public and social life, doing well as politicians. Being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, and is seen as a mark of confidence and leadership. Introvert-type behavior, on the other hand, is considered abnormal. An introvert is considered to have a problem – to be antisocial and shy, to have an illness which needs to be overcome. However, research has shown there is a biological basis to it, relating to different types of brain activity. The introvert/extrovert concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung, on whose work the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is based. Jung was, in fact, an introvert, as were Katherine Hepburn, Hans Christian Andersen and Albert Einstein. Stock market guru Warren Buffet and philanthropist billionaire investor George Soros are others. Of course, like anything else, most of us are a combination of both types. School can be a terrible place for an introverted child who dreads its demands to “perform.” I shudder even now when I remember my fear when called upon to read aloud in front of the class, to write a rhyming couplet on demand, to stand in the aisle beside my desk and sing the scale or answer a math question. Group activities are prevalent at school, and that inhibits the development of ideas in introverts. Also, we need time to think about the answer we will give to a question, but teachers tend to move on to the next person if a student doesn’t respond quickly. Fortunately, introverts tend to be artistic and smart – more than 75 percent of people with an IQ above 160 are introverted – so I did well in school. Another feature of introverts is that, unlike their opposites, they don’t need a lot of encouragement or positive reinforcement to work hard or succeed; nor do they care much what others think of them. Nevertheless, school was not a pleasant experience for me. Hmmm, come to think of it, it might not be a great place for extroverts, either, because their short attention spans, impatience with frustration and love of action could get them labeled! Anyway, not understanding that introversion is normal and doesn’t need to be cured, my more extroverted mother pushed me to be more social and less “shy,” in the same way she tried to push my father into social situations where he wasn’t comfortable. Thinking about how frustrating it must have been for her to live with my father and me, I realized that this is probably the source of much conflict and concern among home educating families. How much simpler life would be if parents understood and appreciated these sorts of personality differences, gave their introverted children a place to be themselves and trusted them to be extroverted when appropriate. Here’s a good website for parents of introverts.
The Messy Room – February 18, 2007
Breastfeeding in Public – January 24, 2007
The Ontario Human Rights Commission already has a policy that states, in part, “You have the right to breastfeed a child in a public area. No one should prevent you from nursing your child simply because you are in a public area…They should not ask you to cover up, disturb you, or ask you to move to another area that is more discreet.” Maybe I was naïve 30-some years ago. Or maybe times have changed for the worse. But I breastfed my two daughters wherever I was in the early 1970s. It never occurred to me that anyone would object. And nobody did, that I recall. After all, feeding children is the purpose of breasts…and it’s a very sad commentary on our messed up culture that we connect feeding a child with sex and relegate it the bedroom, or with other bodily functions and banish it to the bathroom. Indeed, in most places in the world, breastfeeding holds no sexual connotation. At any rate, most breastfeeding mothers bare less skin than many entertainers – just have a look at the upcoming Academy Award presentations! Anyway, the La Leche League has info on its
website about breastfeeding laws in various places. I recall in the early
days of homeschooling, I used to carry a copy of the education law around
with me in public…maybe breastfeeding mothers will have to start doing
that.
Preventing Violence Against Children – October
15, 2006
The report notes that for many children, educational settings expose them to, and may even teach them, violence. “Violence perpetrated by teachers and other school staff, with or without the overt or tacit approval of education ministries and other authorities that oversee schools, includes corporal punishment, cruel and humiliating forms of psychological punishment, sexual and gender-based violence, and bullying. Corporal punishment such as beating and caning is standard practice in schools in a large number of countries around the world.” In spite of this excellent report, those working to eradicate violence against children will, I’m afraid, continue to have an uphill climb against those whose activism is not propelled by the best interests of children. There is a vocal lobby against anything to do with the United Nations, including its Convention on the Rights of the Child, and against the abolition of laws that permit spanking of children. For instance, in Canada in 2004, the Supreme Court refused to criminalize spanking as a form of parental discipline, disagreeing with one of its most internationally respected and outspoken members – Justice Louise Arbour, the UN’s former chief prosecutor in the International War Crimes Tribunal – that spanking should be criminalized. Arguing on the side of parental abuse of children was a group calling itself the Coalition for Family Autonomy, headed up by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and including Focus on the Family, Canada Family Action Coalition and REAL Women of Canada. At the time, HSLDA’s Dallas Miller characterized the court case as an attack on parents by those who support children’s rights. Lest you wonder about the connection with homeschooling, the logic sees this attack, if successful, as eventually making homeschooling illegal. This fear-mongering has served HSLDA well over the years, but that’s another story. The court seemed to believe that family disruption is more harmful to children than corporal punishment. As Miller is quoted as saying on the HSLDA website, “The decision...is grounded in the recognition that to criminalize the actions of parents who provide loving guidance and correction to their children would result in ruined lives and broken families. As the court noted, this burden is often borne by the children involved.” Um, I beg to differ, but I wasn’t in court. Unfortunately, the support of violence against children is not restricted to right-wing conservative organizations. While the Canadian Teachers’ Federation has a policy that opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, it has warned that repealing Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows parents and teachers to use “reasonable force by way of correction” of children would quickly lead to chaos in the classroom – a confusing and, to my mind, hypocritical stance. But maybe it's “just” semantics. Their current policy notes that “Section 43 of the Criminal Code does not sanction or condone child abuse” and that it provides protection to teachers when the use of force is justified.” Hmmm, I thought that whether or not the use of force is ever justified was what was under dispute! Aside from violating the Canadian Charter of
Rights, Section 43 has been singled out as contrary to the Criminal Code
in at least three decades’ worth of reports, many of them commissioned
by governments themselves. In addition, Canada, as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is
obliged to make the physical punishment of children an offense. A
growing number of countries, many of them Scandinavian, combine law
reform with parental education to change public opinion and private
conduct when it comes to striking children. These governments believe
that as the public becomes better informed about the well-established
link between the physical punishment of children and heightened
aggression among children and youth, attitudes toward disciplining
children will be altered. It’s time for other so-called civilized
countries to come out of the Dark Ages and do the right thing.
Embracing Their Choices – October 1, 2006
My own ongoing journey involves embracing and rejoicing in the life choices made by my two now 30-something daughters. And that’s how I view the life decisions made by the young people Peter has interviewed: If we are confident that we’ve given our children the tools of life learning – the ability to reason, experiment, take risks, make mistakes, regroup, change direction and try again – we should be comfortable that they are making the best choices for themselves at any given point in time. Bringing up independent thinkers means respecting the choices that result from that independence, even when we might not agree with them. I do not share the view of one letter writer who suggested that their making choices with which we don’t agree means that “the world of unschooling is in flames.” That
level of acceptance is not always an easy path for parents to walk
and we can’t always look to our own parents as role models, but it’s
an important part of the life learning journey. One of the contributors
to the November/December issue – Karen Ridd – has an accepting
parent as a role model. Karen interviewed her mother about her feelings
around the unschooling of her grandchildren. Her joy in watching her
grandsons learn provides a good role model for us all.
Junk Food and Truant Officers Visit Park Place – September 28, 2006
Homeschoolopoly purports to celebrate the best of homeschooling. Apparently that includes avoiding “running into the Truancy Officer lying in wait to send a homeschooler to court!” But don’t worry, you can use your “HSLDA Member – Get Out of Court Free” card. HSLDA is one of many businesses that have paid big bucks to have their name and other promotional material on the game board and in a flyer inserted in each box. Aside from the fact that it doesn’t reflect the diversity of the homeschooling community, this game seems to me to ratchet up the commercialization of the movement. But the designers of that game have some stiff competition in the hawking stuff to kids department. Hasbro has released a new version of Monopoly itself, which has ads for McDonalds, Starbucks, Motorola and other corporate sponsors on the game tokens. “Shame on Hasbro for hawking junk food and caffeine to children,” says Gary Ruskin, executive director of an organization called Commercial Alert. “Hasbro is toying with the health of our children. Maybe it thinks that the childhood obesity epidemic is just a game, but parents know better.” “Hasbro has undercut one of the prime virtues of its own product,” adds Jonathan Rowe, issues director of Commercial Alert. “Whatever else one thought about Monopoly, at least it conveyed to kids the importance of savings and investment. Now the game is touting consumption instead. Maybe Hasbro should rename it ‘Huckster Haven.’” Commercial Alert’s mission is to keep the
commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from
exploiting children and subverting the higher values of family,
community, environmental integrity and democracy. For more information,
see their website.
What’s the Rush? – August 21, 2006 This sort of adult intervention is common, if not as extreme as in the case of child beauty queens. It’s what makes parents push their young children into playing team sports at an ever-increasingly early age. It’s what leads them to program their children’s summers with school work or “enrichment” activities, and to justify enrolling their three-year-olds in preschool. It’s what robs children of the learning that takes place when they arrange their own games and choose their own activities on their own timetables. In short, when they are respected enough to be allowed to behave like the boisterous, curious children they are. There are a number of possible psychological reasons for parents at the extreme end of this syndrome, but at the bare minimum they are motivated by an urgency to give their kids a leg-up, a running start at achieving success. Author David Elkind notes that these “hurried children” often suffer illness, confusion, pain and stress as a result of being pushed, and that they represent a good chunk of the suicide statistics. Although Elkind coined the term and sounded the
alarm in 1981 in his book The Hurried Child (Addison-Wesley), we’re
hurrying children even faster these days. I find that ironic, given the
fact that life expectancies are increasing in the western world. This
desperate rush to front-end load our children’s lives makes little
sense when they can reasonably expect to survive for another 70 or 80
years. In most people’s lives, there is plenty of time to allow life
to unfold at its own pace, without this desperate need to get ahead. The
cosmetic and education industries would make less money, but I think
we’d all be better off. Hooray for Fooling Around – June 28, 2006 This morning, I heard one “expert” cautioning
that children need free time over the summer, except that it should be
the “fooling around with a purpose” kind of free time. Aside from
the hidden message that learning and fun are incompatible, this person,
being an educator apparently knowledgeable about play, should know
better. Fooling around is how kids learn. Fooling around always has a purpose for
kids. This educator meant the kind of purpose that an adult imposes…that is,
a curriculum-related purpose. If, on the off-chance, a child has really
learned something in school, she won’t forget it over the summer. In
fact, she might use what she learned while fooling around this summer!
However, most of what these well-meaning adults are concerned about
children forgetting hasn’t really been learned; it’s been memorized
with indifference. And it may well be long forgotten by September as the
emancipated children steer clear of anything that looks or smells like
school. And
in place of that memorized stuff that seemed so irrelevant to their
lives is bound to be some real learning that resulted from a
summer of freedom to think, experiment, make mistakes, correct them,
read, day dream and fool around.
Growing Up Too Soon – June 27, 2006 Perhaps the graduation comment was inspired by an article in this morning’s paper. With no irony at all, the piece describes a senior kindergarten graduation, complete with caps, gowns, diplomas and ceremony. The parents gushed, the kindergarten teacher spoke of milestones and becoming independent (turning from caterpillars into butterflies) as they “graduated” from half-day attendance to sitting in desks and listening to teachers talk on a full-time basis. The kids in the accompanying photo look bored already. But perhaps the most telling comment came from one
six-year-old who said his favorite part of the event was having his mom
there. Too bad so many moms are so eager to push their children away,
under the questionable guises of independence and education.
Learning
Independence – June 11, 2006 Expanding the Notion of Feminism – January 22,
2006 So I was pleased to receive an invitation from Albertan unpaid work activist Beverley Smith to join her on March 1 in New York City to argue in favor of the value of unpaid work done in the home. Caregiver Credit, an American organization actively promoting tax recognition for care of the elderly in their own home by family members, has joined the European Federation of Unpaid Parents and Carers at Home, to host a meeting in conjunction with the UN meeting for the Commission on the Status of Women. The meeting, linking women and some men from around the world, has defined a huge goal: to enlarge traditional definitions of “work”, of how an economy works and of how societies can value all the roles men and women have…wherever the work is done. These organizations are not against women’s paid work; they celebrate the advances the women’s movement has made in that area. But they asks for more: for equality for all the roles of women, new and traditional…for inclusiveness, not scornful judgments. They want the balance between career and family to be between two win-win options so that both women and men can make their commitments based on what they believe and on their perceived needs, not only based on money. For more information about Caregiver Credit and
this progressive movement, visit their
website. Gloria Steinem, who is a member of Caregiver Credit’s Board
of Trustees, says “This is the next major phase of the Women’s
Movement.” Finally.
Normalizing
Military Action – December 22, 2005 Behren’s news release reacts to a NORAD release, which
says, “At Santa’s request, millions of curious children will be able
to closely follow his progress by viewing digital photographs and
technical information compiled by NORAD on their Internet site.” He
quotes Santa as saying, “I have made no such request, nor would I.
Kids going to this web site are taught to view war and the instruments
of war as normal, acceptable, inevitable. When I went to the website, I
saw downloadable coloring pages for the most destructive warplanes on
the planet, planes whose only purpose is to deliver death and
destruction. They describe the technology which is part of the star wars
program as ultra-cool, and actually have the gall to say that Rudolph, a
lifelong pacifist who is also a vegetarian, has helped them develop
their infrared tracking technology!” In the release, which is posted on the Homes Not Bombs website,
Behrens includes contacts for the Canadian military wings that have
offered press interviews on this topic, as well as NORAD. Just in case
you agree with him. No Longer All in the Family – August 21, 2005 In response, author and speaker Diane Flynn Keith has written a clever open letter to Reiner opposing his plan. The letter incorporates his film titles, with the idea was that it might be a clever way to get some attention from the media for this issue, and subsequently to initiate some open dialogue and debate on the topic. In addition to having written the book Carschooling, Flynn Keith owns a discussion list called “Unpreschool” and a website called Universal Preschool, where she monitors such issues and provides suggestions for learning alternatives for young children. She points out that the research studies Reiner is using to justify his initiative do not apply to the mainstream preschool population; on the contrary, they involved kids who are from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and considered to be “at risk”. In addition, the results have been contradicted by other research conducted by the same group, and some of the other research has been shown to be skewed due faulty reporting methods and/or too small control groups. And that’s not to mention other research that indicates early separation from parents and too-early academic training can be harmful to young children and stunt their intellectual, emotional, social and psychological development. Flynn Keith says that so-called universal preschool is a problem worldwide. “So many countries already have government funded daycare/childcare programs, that the citizens don’t see what the problem is at all. The mentality seems to be, ‘Of course the government should raise your babies while you go off to work or play – and the government can do a better job than parents ever could anyway!’ But here in the States, we haven’t been used to government funded daycare/preschool programs, although people are really in favor of them, especially if we call them ‘preschool’. There’s an entitlement mentality…when it comes to education. To most folks, public preschools are just an extension of public schools and they support them, without ever asking, “What’s best for the children?” Life learners know, as Flynn Keith says, “that
children learn best through imaginative play and exploration of their
environment in the natural rhythm and routine of their home with loving
parents, not in the artificial environment of classrooms with transient
strangers who indoctrinate them with academic curriculum.” Initiatives
like Reiner’s succeed by playing on people’s fears of their children
“falling behind” if they don’t have the “advantage” of an
early start. Flynn Keith asks, “The government has a track record in
public schools and they are failing so what would possibly make parents
think that they can rely on the government to properly nurture and
educate our completely vulnerable little children?” I believe our
governments would be better off spending our tax money to create the
social and economic environment that would allow families to do what
they do best: help their children learn and develop. If you agree with
me, tell them so and don’t let misguided guys like Rob Reiner be the
only voices heard. Honoring Children With Song – June 23, 2005 Given his obvious respect for children and
ecological advocacy, I wasn’t surprised to recently receive
information about Raffi’s
Covenant
for Honouring Children, a poetic declaration of our
responsibilities to children and the Earth, and of respect for the child
as a whole person. It is being circulated through child advocacy and
environmental health groups, and an audio
version, featuring the voices of Raffi, Dr. Jane Goodall and the Dalai
Lama, has been created. The Covenant (© 2004 Homeland Press) reads in
part: “We find these joys to be self evident: That all children are created
whole, endowed with innate intelligence, with dignity and wonder, worthy
of respect. The embodiment of life, liberty and happiness, children are
original blessings, here to learn their own song. Every girl and boy is
entitled to love, to dream and belong to a loving village. And to
pursue a life of purpose. “We affirm our duty to nourish and nurture the
young, to honour their caring ideals as the heart of being human. To
recognize the early years as the foundation of life, and to cherish the
contribution of young children to human evolution.” Raffi
is now devoting most of his time to reaching adults with that message.
He is currently writing a book entitled Child
Honoring: How To Turn This World Around, an anthology promoting
respect for the first years of life as the best way to create a humane
and sustainable world. Sounds syrupy, eh? It’s not. This guy is the
real deal. Given his popularity and trust with kids, he gets tons of
corporations wanting to license his songs to sell things to kids. And he
always refuses, saying he won’t violate the kids’ trust. He even
backed out of the Vancouver International Children’s Festival in 2000
after arriving to find it awash in corporate sponsorship. More about
this refreshing guy and his work can be found at http://www.raffisongs.com. Becoming Voiceless – May 5, 2005 As I read that quote, I flashbacked to circa 1960
and heard and saw my own mother using those same words. And I
experienced all over again the hurt and frustration of being punished
for innocently sharing my summer vacation dilemma. I’m not sure if my
mother wanted to solve my boredom problem or punish me, but she most
surely shut down future communication with her. Perhaps she truly
believed that children – and perhaps women – should be, or actually
were, voiceless. But Sandra’s words made me understand why today, at a
sprightly and relatively independent 96 years of age, my mother seems
apathetic. Her reaction to most of my suggestions is that she can’t be
bothered. And why would anyone bother doing or saying anything if they
had felt for most of their lifetime that their actions or words
weren’t important? Trusting Ourselves and Our Children
Is Not Regressive
– April 1, 2005
I have been exploring some of those issues – both
in my own life and in a broader context – as a result of the reader
feedback I’ve been receiving to a recent Life Learning
magazine column (see my
March 21, 2005 blog entry – “Learning Neatness”). As part of that
exploration, I am reading a book entitled The
Paradox of Natural Mothering
(2002, Temple University Press). Academic Chris Bobel has massaged her
dissertation into a book that portrays a group of mothers engaged in
homeschooling, natural health care, voluntary simplicity and various
attachment parenting practices. The paradox in the title arises from
what Bobel sees as a conflict between a lifestyle that is both
progressive and regressive (i.e. anti-feminist). While the women she
interviewed feel they are making choices in their lives, Bobel
denigrates these as non-choices that are biologically determined because
they are emotionally-based rather than intellectually thought-out.
(Presumably, if they’d thought about their choices, they’d have
behaved like more conventional mothers!) What these mothers are, in
fact, doing is trusting their emotions, their intuition, their bodies
and their children. Perhaps our societal agendas have swung us so far
away from the inherent “knowing” that characterizes primitive
societies that so-called “natural parenting” seems to contradict the
principles of equality for women. My own life – and I would say those
of the women Bobel has portrayed – is an ongoing pursuit of the
balance between trust and intellect. Trust, after all, is one of the
cornerstones of non-coercive parenting and life learning. Taking
ownership of our own education and allowing our children to own theirs
requires trust in what we call “human nature”. In the case of our
children, that means trusting that they will behave sociably and want to
learn things, including both academic knowledge and social skills...with
our help and example, of course. Learning Neatness – March 21, 2005 Well! I have been ducking a firestorm of complaints
ever since the article was published. We’re telling mom to be a
doormat, wrote one irate reader. It’s not difficult to make the kids
pick-up, said another. There is a need to address the parent’s
resentments, according to one woman, if the family isn’t to live in a
pigsty. Another woman wrote about having grown up in a household with a
maid who picked up after the family and how “wrong and twisted” she
has come to think that was. “What on earth were my parents
thinking?” she cried. “Did they even care enough to think about it
at all?” Whew. We appear to have unearthed a lot of deep feelings,
including those about cleanliness and our roles as women and parents! I’m pretty sure the discussion will continue in
the pages of Life Learning (we
try to print all the letters we receive that include first and last
names, plus the city where you live)...or in this blog if you are not a Life
Learning reader. But I have to ask why we can trust
that our kids will learn arithmetic on their own but
can’t trust them to learn how to clean up messes. Why do these
readers accept that real learning does not happen under coercion but
feel the need to coerce their children to pick up after themselves? Why
are we making a distinction between academic and life skills? One reader, who seems less stressed than some about the
article in question, sent along this quotation for my quote
collection:
“Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more
deadly in the long run.” ~ Mark Twain. Too Young to be Seen in
Public – February 22, 2005 However,
there is a much darker side to the issue. Dig a bit deeper on the
websites of such companies and you will be able to purchase an ID card
for your kid too. These cards aren’t designed to make your kid feel
part of a peer group or to get them discounts in stores. They are to
keep your kid out of the hands of the police when they are outside
during school hours. Since the mid to late 1990s, an increasing number
of cities have been making it illegal for people under 18 to be outside
during school hours unless accompanied by an adult or in possession of a
permission slip from a parent or guardian. These municipal curfew laws
allow police to stop and question someone just because they look young.
What a gargantuan assault on the rights of young people! As an attempt to control
truancy and juvenile crime, such laws are a failure, according to a 1998
study by San Francisco’s Justice Policy Institute, possibly since most
crime simply isn’t committed during the day by kids between 5 and 18.
Instead, they waste the time of police officers who could be doing
something useful to fight crime and they promote negative feelings in young
people about law enforcement agencies. Additionally, they make the
archaic assumption that education only happens between certain hours
in certain locations. In addition to self-educated young people whose
education takes place primarily in the community, students in year-round
schools or who attend schools with unusual days off or otherwise
flexible schedules can also run afoul of these scandalously stupid
curfew laws. I haven’t been able to
find statistics for the number of cities that have enacted daytime
curfews in the U.S. and Canada. But I was amazed to learn that in 1997, the United States Conference
of Mayors identified 72 cities across the U.S. with daytime curfews; the
momentum seems to be increasing and a quick Internet search uncovered a
dozen or so that have enacted them over the past few months alone, plus
two states – Illinois and Hawaii – that are considering state-wide daytime curfews.
Curfews – even of the more common overnight
variety – have had less success in Canada; last summer, the Quebec
Human Rights commission overturned one enacted by the town of
Huntingdon (just north of the New York State border). But that’s
not to say it couldn’t happen in this country. Some groups, like the Home Educators
Association of Virginia (HEAV), have been battling daytime curfew laws.
But it’s an uphill battle because the post-9/11 climate of fear is encouraging
the erosion of human rights. And I don’t think most people like kids
enough to tolerate their presence except in specialized holding
facilities like schools. Nevertheless, I hope
that all families who live in areas with daytime curfews – whether or
not their kids attend school or learn elsewhere – will work to get
them revoked. I also hope families who live in cities without them will
make sure they never pass. Hyper-parenting
and its Backlash – December 3, 2004 Now,
I don’t imagine a hyper-anything turns into its laid-back opposite
very easily. And true to form, hyper-parents will do the backlash with
fervor. It apparently already has its movement manifesto – Muffy
Mead-Ferro’s book Confessions of a Slacker Mom (Da
Capo Lifelong, 2004). (Slacker moms – do we detect a touch of guilt in
that term? – say No to parenting philosophies that undermine parents’
and children’s ability to think for themselves.) And, of course, every trend and
counter-trend has its accompanying industry, this one involving an
alarmingly large body of products and services dedicated to de-stressing kids’ lives, from seminars teaching parents how to back
off, to yoga classes for kids. Ironically,
hyper-parents may be in danger of making the cure worse than the
ailment. Maclean’s author Sue Ferguson asks the rhetorical
question: “Are we really capable of hands-off parenting?” And
perhaps many of us aren’t, because along with pressuring their kids to
perform, parents are, according to the November/December issue of Psychology
Today, “going to ludicrous lengths to take the lumps and bumps out
of life for their children.” This generation of parents seems so
invested in their kids that if they’re not pushing they’re pulling.
In the Psychology Today piece, which is entitled “A Nation of
Wimps”, Hara Estroff Marano writes, “However well-intentioned,
parental hyperconcern and microscrutiny have the net effect of making
kids more fragile.” Part of the modus operandi of hyper-parents is to
protect their kids, to take all the discomfort and disappointment out
their children’s lives. So...these parents push and prod and pressure
their kids, and then take away all opportunity to learn coping skills
and, as a result, make them risk-adverse. In their desire to help their
kids succeed, hyper-parents are setting them up to do just the opposite. What
a pressure cooker! No wonder that anxiety is the most common cause of
childhood psychological disorders, affecting approximately 20 percent of
North American children. The Psychology Today piece quotes one
child as telling his psychologist, “I wish my parents had some hobby
other than me.” Well, even though the big
magazines are writing about the subject (and my own Life Learning
magazine – dedicated to helping parents let their kids have the space
to learn – is steadily increasing its readership), I’m probably being
too optimistic to think this backlash against hyper-parenting is gaining
huge speed. Psychology Today’s writes, “Messing up, even in
the playground, is wildly out of style. Although error and
experimentation are the true mothers of success, parents are taking
pains to remove failure from the equation.” I guess there is a long
distance between knowing something and putting it into practice. Compulsory Childcare? – October
27, 2004 Now, I am the first to agree that we need stable, well-funded daycare (and
other kinds of babysitting) for those who want and need it. And we
shouldn’t tolerate the shabby centers, poorly trained and underpaid
workers, and lack of outdoor play space that the OECD researchers
apparently found on their cross-country tour. Canada has among the
highest percentage of working mothers of young children, yet it invests
less than half of what other developed nations in Europe devote on
average, according to the report. It recommended that federal and
provincial governments each pay 40 percent of daycare costs, with
parents making up the remaining 20 percent. However, I’m very worried about where this is going. In a Toronto Star
article yesterday about the report, social worker and former
Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick Margaret
Norrie McCain was quoted as using the term “evidence-based
early childhood development”. She said, “In the past, people thought
of [daycare] as a babysitting service for moms to go to work.” Uh,
yes, isn’t that what we’re talking about (with the possible
inclusion of dads)? Nope, what we’re really talking about, according
to Norrie McCain, is “falling behind in the ability of our people to
compete on the world stage, in the global marketplace. It’s serious
business.” Ah yes, that report was authored by an economic
development organization, wasn’t it? Nervous yet? Well, how about this? OECD project
manager John Bennett believes that neglecting child development is a
pity because children are “very competent learners”. They can, he
says, “do a great deal and if they’re given the right situation and
the right support and the right professionals looking after them,
children will learn to read and write quite quickly, they’ll be
curious about nature, about their environment, it means they can
communicate well together.” His report notes the importance of young
children taking part in “an active, exploratory curriculum”. Such
professional arrogance, such a lack of understanding about how kids
learn! Why not put some public money into supporting parents so they can
stay at home with their young children? Why not put some money into
creating and supporting community institutions to help families learn
together? But that’s clearly not where we are headed. In
response to the report, Minister for Social Development Ken Dryden, who has responsibility for drafting a
$5 billion national childcare plan, told reporters, “What the
OECD report said, and very clearly and effectively, is we’ve
approached child care in the past as a service... Now what we need to do
is move from that to something that is a system.” He favorably
compared the development of a childcare system to the way the public
education system developed a century ago. And in doing so, he has
inadvertently described one of the main problems with the public
education “system” – it has never been a service! So...“evidence-based”, “curriculum”,
“professionals”, “system”. How long until attendance at
childcare becomes compulsory? Like Parent, Like Child – October
25, 2004 It was found that children aged two to
three years who were living in punitive environments in 1994 scored 39
percent higher on a scale of aggressive behaviors, such as bullying or
being mean to others, than did those in less punitive environments. The
difference was even more pronounced six years later in 2000, when the
children were eight to nine years old. Those who lived in punitive homes
scored 83 percent higher on the aggressive behavior scale than those in
less punitive homes. Both at age two to three and also at age eight to
nine, children raised in a non-punitive parenting environment were much
less likely than others to exhibit aggressive behavior, according to
their parents. The level of aggression was not affected by household
income or gender of the children. However – and here is what I find really interesting – the study found that
as parents adjusted their parenting styles, their children were able to
change as well. When parenting styles that had been punitive when
children were two to three years old became less punitive six years
later, children’s aggressive behavior scores also tended to be lower,
regardless of how aggressively they had behaved while very young. In
other words, children whose parenting environment changed from punitive
at age two to three to non-punitive at age eight to nine scored just as
low in aggressive behavior as those whose parenting environment was not
punitive at either of those ages. Or Are They Growing Up Too Slowly? – August
9, 2004
So which trend is
it anyway?? Parents rushing their
kids into adulthood before they’re ready (see yesterday’s rant,
below) or parents not allowing them to grow up? Can’t be both at
the same time.
Let’s just
listen to our kids and our hearts; ignore the trends, the fads and...this is heresy coming from a writer...the books;
respect our kids for the individuals they are; stop beating ourselves
up for not being perfect parents; and enjoy ourselves and our families. Now there’s a concept! At
Their Own Speed – August 8, 2004 But chatting with
our daughter this
past week, some concerns that have been lurking just under my
consciousness began to surface. I began to wonder if
their father
and I could
have done better (don’t we all?!) especially in terms of helping them make the
transition to adulthood. Did they really grow up at their own
speed, or did we expect too much from them too soon because – like
most alternatively-educated and attachment-parented kids – they seemed
sophisticated and confident at a relatively early age? In his book The Hurried
Child, David Elkind writes that in blurring the boundaries of what is age appropriate, by expecting or
imposing too much too soon, we force our kids to grow up too fast. But
what, I argued with myself this morning, is “age appropriate”? And who decides? Elkind’s
basic premise is that parents have pushed their children emotionally and
intellectually too far, too fast. He says that today’s parents think of their kids
as Superkids, so competent and so mature that they need adults very
little. Why? Because, he believes, parents, who are building careers,
blending families or struggling as single parents, have no time for
child rearing. Having a competent Superkid relieves these parents of
guilt, but it places too much stress on the children themselves.
British
psychologist Terri Apter takes Elkind’s premise a step farther. In her
book The Myth of Maturity, she argues against the notion that when children finish high school or
college and land a job they instantly become autonomous, responsible
adults. This myth of maturity, she writes, is harming our kids. While a
young person may appear to function as an adult, in reality they are
often in turmoil, depressed and overwhelmed by life. So instead of withdrawing
emotional or practical support so that their teenager can solve his or
her own problems, Apter says we really should be providing continued
guidance and support, while also requiring respect and independence. Looking back, I do recall feeling relieved (OK, smug too) that my kids seemed to be
navigating teenagedom fairly easily. However, listening to them now, I
realize that we probably sometimes fell off the fine line between expecting
too much and too little. And while never withdrawing emotional support,
their father did give them some not-so-subtle nudges out of the nest. But we didn’t feel any pressure to go along with the Superkid image out of fear
that Heidi and Melanie would “lag behind”. And as autonomous,
responsible children and teens, they naturally avoided the jolt that
happens to the schooled kids Apter studied. And even though – for
whatever reasons – I missed some things with which I probably could have
helped,
they
grew quite gracefully into their 20s and now
their 30s. Then, just as I had
laid that concern to rest, I went shopping and noticed a plethora of adult-aimed items – from T-shirts and purses to tea towels – featuring Care Bears,
Hello Kitty, Blues Cues and various Disney characters. Are young people,
I wondered, feeling so cheated out of childhood that they have this
level of nostalgia for novelties geared to a much younger audience?
Are they revisiting the fantasy world of childhood because the real world is so scary, as an article in
yesterday’s Toronto Star (one of a recent
spate in the mainstream media) suggests? Writes columnist Margo Varadi,
“There comes a point when young people can’t deal with the anxiety
of feeling vulnerable all the time and want to be reassured.” Hmmm, I
thought, as I read that line. There comes a point when people of all
ages can’t deal with the anxiety of feeling vulnerable and want to be
reassured! Maybe we all need a dose of childhood from time to time just
because it’s comforting. Maybe nostalgia thrives as the world gets
scarier. Controlling
Behavior, Not Thinking – July 5, 2004 Baby
Signs – June 3, 2004 This could be seen as an extension of the gestures most babies learn to make, such as waving goodbye and pointing to mommy’s breast when it’s time to eat. Or it could be seen as an extension of the give-them-a-head-start/teach-your-baby-to-read philosophy, which I detest. Drs. Linda Acredolo and Susan Goodwyn and child development specialist Joseph Garcia “discovered” baby signing in the 1980s. Acredolo and Goodwyn conducted the research for the National Institute of Health that is said to demonstrate the language and cognitive benefits of baby signing. Their research seems to show that teaching babies to sign increases their IQ and enables them to talk at an earlier age than those who don’t. Babies who sign apparently do better on infant IQ tests at age two. Age two??? Garcia is the author of Sign With Your Baby. Acredolo and Goodwyn authored the book Baby Signs: How to Talk With Your Baby Before Your Baby Can Talk. And they have written other books, including a whole raft of baby signs for specific purposes titles and Baby Minds: Brain Building Games Your Baby Will Love. There are both supporters and skeptics of baby signing and the claims made in its favor. It seems to act as a bridge into speech, rather than delaying the spoken word. Some psychologists feel that any developmental advantages may come from the close contact between parent and child, rather than from signing specifically, and say that, like with early reading, everybody catches up in the end. Signing may reduce parental frustration and thus decrease family stress – ever tried to figure out whether your fretful baby was hungry, wet, uncomfortable, cold, hot or otherwise upset? And there certainly doesn’t seem to be any harm done, except perhaps to the family bank account. Like any movement – especially
those that involve parents who are vulnerable to spending money because
they want to give their kids a head start – this one is breeding an
industry of baby sign language instructors, videos, CDs, books, websites
and even home business opportunities. Who Decides?
– May 29, 2004 Overstimulating TV – April 25, 2004 The researchers didn’t know what shows the children watched, but lead author Dr. Dimitri Christakis says that content likely isn’t at fault. Instead, he says, unrealistically fast-paced visual images typical of most TV programming may alter normal brain development. Research has already shown that since the brain develops very rapidly during the first two to three years of life and that television watching can shorten attention spans. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics already recommends that children younger than two not watch television. In my opinion,
that is good advice for people older that two as well! As Groucho Marx
once said, “I find television very educational. Every time someone
switches it on I go into another room and read a good book.” Lack of Power – April 21, 2004 Milner’s
findings also suggest that our consumer society plays an influential
role in the lives of status-conscious teenagers: “Perhaps the thing
that American secondary education teaches most effectively is a desire
to consume,” he writes. Laziness –
April 20, 2004 The Puritan Work Ethic is especially damaging in terms of education, where work for its own sake just doesn’t make sense. Students are often asked to put in long hours in the classroom and doing homework, experiences that seldom produce much real learning. What we call “play”, on the other hand, often results in a great deal of learning. The problem for many adults is their lack of trust in children’s innate ability – yes, their drive – to learn. As a result, they mistrust what seems like inactivity, forgetting that our brains can be very active while our bodies are at rest. Oh, and that fear of growing up lazy? Kids who are able
to pursue the results of their own interests and passions work harder
than those who are made to do meaningless work. That just makes people
aimless and unproductive.
Distraction
from Interaction – April 9, 2004 Return
to current weblog copyright © Wendy Priesnitz 2004-2009 |
Topics & Passions: natural learning
|
