Time-Crunched working parents - especially women - find caring for their children the most stressful, frustrating or boring activity in their daily lives.

A study of parents’ moods as they go about their days has found child care is the only activity that mothers dislike significantly more than fathers do.

In contrast, women feel more positively about their jobs than men, although for both sexes paid work ran second to child care as the most negative activity of the week. Working parents are at their happiest when engaged in socialising, community activities, voluntary work or care, education and recreation, the study found.

The academic behind the study, Peter Brown, of Griffith University’s Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, is intrigued by the counter-intuitive finding that women feel more negative about child care, and more positive about paid work, than men.

“The conventional stereotypes of men being breadwinners and women being the carers, in terms of positive effect, it’s the reverse of what you would expect,” he said. “Maybe it’s that familiarity breeds contempt.”

He said the results suggest Australian parents should pursue a third dimension to their work/family balancing act, with more “me-time” and leisure activities.

“The fact that much leisure is played out in a social context, the importance of contact with others, that’s the stuff that makes us happy and healthy,” Professor Brown said. (…)

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
http://tinyurl.com/3clcsn

Preschoolers’ odds of having nightmares may be related to their temperament as infants, which may be noticed as early as 5 months old, new research suggests.

In a study that followed 987 children from infancy to age 6, Canadian researchers found that the majority had an occasional bad dream, while a few had them frequently. The odds of having nightmares — and of having them consistently through the preschool years — were higher among children who were considered to be more anxious or “difficult” as babies.

The findings suggest that young children’s bad dreams “are trait-like in nature and associated with personality characteristics measured as early as 5 months,” the researchers report in the medical journal Sleep.

A previous study with identical and non-identical twins suggested that people may inherit a certain vulnerability to having nightmares, Dr. Tore Nielsen, one of the researchers on the new study, told Reuters Health.

In this study, “bad dreams” as early as the age of 2.5 were predicted by signs of anxiety at the ages of 5 months and 17 months, explained Nielsen, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Montreal. (…)

The results raise the possibility that calming infants’ persistent distress may relieve them of some bad dreams later in childhood, according to the researchers.

In this study, certain parenting routines — like taking 2-year-olds out of bed to comfort them when they were distressed — were related to a lower risk of nightmares later in childhood.

The study did not examine the effectiveness of any tactics for easing infants’ and young children’s anxiety — or their influence on the odds of having nightmares later, Nielsen said. However, he added that based on other research, a good starting point would be to improve children’s early bonding, or “secure attachment,” with their parents. (…)

Source: Reuters India, India
http://tinyurl.com/28d78t

Despite an improved economy, Japan is suffering a crisis of confidence these days about its ability to compete with its emerging Asian rivals, China and India.

One result has been a growing craze for Indian education in this fad-obsessed nation.
The Indian boomlet reflects the insecurity many Japanese feel about schools in their country, facilities that once turned out students who consistently ranked at the top of international tests.

But now many are looking for lessons from India, a country seen by many in Japan as the world’s ascendant education superpower. (…)

The thought of viewing another Asian country as a model in education, or almost anything else, would have been unheard of a few years ago, education experts and historians say.

Much of Japan has long looked down on the rest of Asia, priding itself on being the most advanced country in the region. Indeed, Japan has dominated the continent for more than a century, first as an imperial power and more recently as the first Asian economy to achieve Western levels of development.

But in recent years, Japan has grown increasingly insecure, gripped by fear that it was being overshadowed by India and China, which were rapidly gaining in economic weight and sophistication. The government in Tokyo has tried to preserve the Japanese technological lead and strengthen its military. But the Japanese have been forced to shed a traditional indifference to their neighbors in the region.

Suddenly, Japan is, grudgingly, starting to show a new sense of respect.

“Until now, Japanese saw China and India as backward and poor,” said Yoshinori Murai, a professor of Asian cultures at Sophia University in Tokyo. “As Japan loses confidence in itself, its attitudes toward Asia are changing. It has started seeing India and China as nations with something to offer.”

In education, Japanese respect has grown in seemingly direct proportion to how far its performance has slipped below its Asian rivals on international tests.

Last month, a cry of alarm greeted the announcement by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that in an international survey of math skills, Japan had fallen from first place in 2000 to 10th place, behind Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. From second in science in 2000, Japan dropped to sixth place. (…)

Most annoying for many Japanese is that the aspects of Indian education they now praise are similar to those that once made Japan famous for its work ethic and discipline: learning more at an earlier age, a heavier reliance on rote memorization and cramming, and a stronger focus on the basics, particularly in math and science.

Source: The Asian Pacific Post, Canada
http://tinyurl.com/26hm6e

(…) Scientists have found a variation in a gene that may raise the risk of developing autism, especially when the variant is inherited from mothers rather than fathers. The research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), part of the National Institutes of Health.

Inheriting the gene variant does not mean that a child will inevitably develop autism. It means that a child may be more vulnerable to developing the disease than are children without the variation.

The gene, CNTNAP2, makes a protein that enables brain cells to communicate with each other through chemical signals and appears to play a role in brain cell development. Previous studies have implicated the gene in autism, and in this study researchers were able to link a specific variation in its structure to the disease.

Results of the study were reported online January 10 in the American Journal of Human Genetics, by Aravinda Chakravarti, Ph.D., Dan E. Arking, Ph.D., and colleagues from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, with Edwin Cook, M.D., and colleagues from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“Autism is highly heritable. Identifying the genes involved is crucial to our ability to map out the pathology of this isolating and sometimes terribly disabling disease, which currently has no cure,” said NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D.

Autism is a developmental brain disorder that impairs basic behaviors needed for social interactions, such as eye contact and speech, and includes other symptoms, such as repetitive, obsessive behaviors. The symptoms sometimes cause profound disability, and they persist throughout life. Treatments may relieve some symptoms, but no treatment is fully effective in treating the core social deficits.

Although the cause of autism is not yet clear, studies of twins have shown that genes play a major role. It is likely that variations in many genes, influenced by environmental factors, interact during brain development to cause vulnerability to the disease. These genes have yet to be identified… (…)

Source: EurekAlert, DC
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/niom-arh010308.php

Leading Australian education experts continue to reject scientific evidence that teaching phonics improves reading skills in children.

The latest results from a seven-year Scottish study show that children taught how to put sounds together to read words, called synthetic phonics, had significantly better reading skills than their peers taught using analytic phonics, breaking whole words into their constituent sounds.

But eminent Australian literacy researcher Allan Luke, from the Queensland University of Technology, questions the validity of using evidence-based research in assessing teaching methods. Professor Luke, a former director-general of the Queensland Education Department and ministerial adviser on education, has dismissed scientific studies showing the benefit of phonics.

Speaking at a curriculum symposium last month, he said the studies provided no evidence that alternate methods had failed.

Opponents of a phonics approach in teaching reading argue that it fails to enhance students’ reading comprehension.

The seven-year Scottish study found that, under the synthetic phonics approach, students’ reading was 42 months ahead of the average for their age and spelling was 20 months ahead.

But their comprehension was a more modest 3.5 months ahead, which researcher Rhona Johnston said was due to a substantial number of students coming from socially disadvantaged areas.

To counter the criticism, Professor Johnston, now at the University of Hull in England, and her colleague Joyce Watson, at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, compared a group of 10-year-olds from Clackmannanshire with a similarly disadvantaged group of students in England.

The Scottish children read words 24 months ahead of what is expected for their age while the word reading of the English students was on target. In spelling, the Scottish children were six months ahead of their age compared to the English students.

In comprehension, the Scottish children were on target for their age, while the English students were 6.6 months behind.

Literacy expert Kevin Wheldall, from Macquarie University, said phonics taught children how to decode written language and was a necessary first step in learning to read.

“Comprehension comes from a good understanding of spoken English, but if you can’t decode words, then it doesn’t matter how good your listening comprehension is,” he said. “(Critics) seem to be determined not to believe the evidence.” (…)

Source: The Australian, Australia
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23030580-12332,00.html

Breast-feeding is considered a great way for a mother to form a close bond with her infant. And now there’s evidence to suggest it may also help kids be more resilient to stress.

Researchers in Sweden and the United Kingdom examined data on almost 9,000 children born in Great Britain in 1970. Relevant information was collected at birth and again at ages 5 and 10 from parents, teachers, health-care workers and midwives.

Teachers were asked to rate the kids’ anxiety levels on a zero-to-50 scale at age 10. And parents were asked about major life events — including divorce or separation — that occurred when their children were between 5 and 10 years old.

Not surprisingly, children whose parents had divorced or separated were more likely to have high anxiety. But what the researchers found striking was the difference in stress levels between breast-fed and bottle-fed kids. Breast-fed children were significantly less anxious than kids who hadn’t nursed at their mother’s breast.

Lead author Scott Montgomery, an associate professor at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, said the research team was interested in examining whether there are any specific early-life exposures that make children better able to cope with stress later in life. The study attempted to replicate animal studies that showed close physical contact between a mother and her offspring may have a positive impact on the development of the offspring’s stress response, he said. (…)

“There is no question that breast-feeding is better for the health of mothers and children,” said Nicole Else-Quest, an assistant professor of psychology at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, “but it is less clear how breast-feeding affects the mother-child relationship.” Breast-feeding may help to establish an early bond, she added, but “it is only one of many ways to do so.”

As for why there might be differences in stress between breast-fed and bottle-fed kids, Else-Quest said it is difficult to speculate “given that many factors influence the decisions to breast-feed in the first place.”

The research team considered factors that might affect a child’s reaction to stress and ability to cope, such as maternal depression, parental education levels, social class, and smoking habits. Even after accounting for those factors, breast-fed children were less anxious than their peers. In addition, bottle-fed children whose parents divorced were more anxious than breast-fed kids.

Yet the study findings don’t prove that breast-feeding itself reduces anxiety. It may be a mark of close, early physical contact, the researchers noted.

“A child without such regular contact may perceive greater danger reacting to stress — indicating a potentially dangerous situation — with a more reactive and less well-controlled stress response,” Montgomery said.

It’s also possible, he added, that mothers who breast-fed simply have a better relationship with their child. (…)

Source: U.S. News & World Report, DC
http://tinyurl.com/2cpqoa

Q: My 15-month-old boy rams his little pushcart into our dog. He thinks it’s a game — a very funny one, apparently. His pediatrician strongly suggests time-outs for two minutes at a time whenever he shows aggressive behavior, which he said can start in boys at this age. He seems too young to start time-outs. Thoughts?

A: Before launching into various procedures regarding time-out, understand that toddlers (12- to 36-month-old children) are on the go with few inner controls. You must provide the control your son lacks. Between 3 and 5 years, the control you provide begins to transfer from you to the child.

That said, when your pediatrician suggested a two-minute time-out, did he offer any particulars? Were you to set him on a chair in isolation? Put him in his crib? Hold him for the two-minute time-out? Give him a time-out from the dog, keeping the dog away from the child? Give the toy a time-out, putting the pushcart away for a while, thus preventing the child from using it to harm the beloved animal?

In such situations it’s best to ask yourself, “What is my goal in this situation?” Your goal, it seems, is for your toddler to learn not to harm the dog with his pushcart, or anything else. It would be so nice if a few of the sessions in his crib or sitting on a chair would be learning enough for your child to stop the aggressive behavior.

For time-out to be effective, it needs to change or improve a child’s behavior. Ask around — most parents find frustration from this disciplinary technique, especially when the child is isolated for the time-out stint.

Therefore, it’s important to think of time-out as time away from the person, place or thing that’s reinforcing the negative behavior. Therefore, ask yourself, “What’s reinforcing the negative situation?” In this case, it’s the dog and the pushcart. When your son heads toward the dog with the pushcart, you need to put the dog in another room and the pushcart in the closet.

But even doing so may not work. You need to take “time-in” to teach him how to treat the dog by demonstrating gentle pets and play. Time-out away from any specific situation stops the negative behavior, but neglects to teach the child what to do instead.

Time-out is most effective when targeted for one specific negative behavior. The parent either takes the toy or object in question away, separates the child from the other person (or animal in this case) that’s involved in the negative altercation or removes the child from the scene that’s contributing to the negative behavior.

Say, for instance, a child is misbehaving at a birthday party. The parent can give the child a time-out from the event, but realize that the child’s behavior will likely improve more quickly if the parent goes with him. Children, isolated, don’t readily improve their behavior; in fact, quite often it turns worse.

Use time-outs cautiously, making sure that when employing them consistently for one negative behavior that the behavior actually begins to drop out of sight. If it doesn’t, try another disciplinary technique.

Time-out is an easy action for parents to take when children do something wrong. But on the proactive side, make sure you are teaching your son what to do what’s right during time-in.

Source: Seattle Times, United States
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/parenting/2004107750_faull05.html

Wherever you stand on the controversial issue of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, one thing is certain: that drugs for treatment of this syndrome are costing $1.4 million per month must give pause to even the most ardent advocate of ADHD medication.

This level of drug intake, largely involving children and teens, is astonishing.

It forces us to ask two central questions. One: is the problem really that massive? Can it be so that a problem that in years past wasn’t even identified as a problem is now so prevalent as to require such gigantic spending?

And two: are we as a society overreacting to general alarm over ADHD and taking an easy way out through the use of drugs? What happened to traditional parenting as a means of calming and teaching children? It could be that a path exists somewhere between massive medication and no medication at all.

University of NSW Professor Florence Levy has been studying ADHD and other drugs used to cure the attention-deficit symptoms since the 1970s. She believes there is a need for drugs but questions to what extent their appropriateness to treat all children who display behavioural problems.

In her studies, she has found that alternative treatments such as language and reading interventions are sometimes more beneficial than the use of a stimulant.

The controversial program Dore, which relies on diet and exercise to treat ADHD, is still yet to be thoroughly researched.

Which leads to another issue. Could the millions of dollars spent on medicating ADHD children be better spent on investing in researching the root of the problem?

Source: Daily Telegraph, Australia
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23006965-5001031,00.html

Mounting economic pressures are stopping new mothers from staying at home to care for their children, a parents’ lobby group has warned.

Mother of four Marie Lewis, a campaigner with Time for Parenting, claims women actually now have less choice than their mothers’ generation when it comes to returning to work.

The comments echo recent pronouncements by the Archbishop of Wales when he spoke of the modern workplace’s threat to family life.

Ms Lewis, 44, originally from Llandeilo, said the economy had become based on the model of both parents working, making it impossible for many families to have one parent staying at home full time.

For example, she pointed out that one parent earning £60,000 pays more tax than two people in the same house earning £30,000 each.

Ms Lewis believes women are now under social and financial pressure to return to work when their babies are very small, although they increasingly see this as the wrong option. (…)

“Attitudes towards staying at home to look after the children have changed but people can’t always stay at home with their children because of the economics of it. They can’t afford to stay at home. I think more people would like to put their family relationships first but the whole global economy is geared towards two salaries.

“I believe it is harder for women to stay at home with their children now.

“Nobody could have predicted the speed of change and how greedy and consumerist society has come in sucking up that second income.

“It was originally intended to make lives easier to have a bit of extra income for the odd holiday and to get a better future for people’s children.

“That has now changed into the second income becoming an absolute necessity for many.

“If you want to have even the most basic lifestyle then quite often both parents have to work.

“You could argue that women now are in a worse position than their mothers ever were.”

Source: ic Wales, United Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/2vk99m

Looking back over the past 12 months, it is clear that 2007 was a watershed year for education. Much of what has been argued on these pages in terms of increased testing and more rigorous examinations, adopting a back-to-basics approach to curriculum, holding schools accountable and better rewarding teachers, is now mainstream in terms of the debate and is being advocated by ALP state and federal governments.

How can we ensure, though, that initiatives planned for 2008 and beyond will be effective in raising standards, better supporting teachers and schools and ensuring that students receive a well-balanced, academically sound and fulfilling educational experience?

One approach is to learn from what is happening overseas, in addition to our own experience, and to evaluate classroom practice by what the research suggests works.

In Britain, the Rose report, in part based on the success of the Scottish school Clackmannanshire, recommends adopting a synthetic phonics approach to teaching reading, a recommendation the British Government has accepted. In opposition to the prevailing whole-language approach — whereby, on the assumption that learning to read is as natural as learning to speak, children are taught to look and guess and memorise words by sight — synthetic phonics “is a sounds-based approach that first teaches children the sounds of letters and how they blend into words, before moving to letter combinations that make up words”.

Adopting a more structured approach to literacy and numeracy is also supported by the US research associated with Project Follow Through. The billion-dollar nationwide project evaluated different approaches to teaching and concluded that formal methods of classroom interaction, described as direct instruction, are more effective than the type of teaching associated with Australia’s adoption of outcomes-based education.

Summarising what we can learn from Project Follow Through, Australian mathematics researcher Rhonda Farkota noted: “Student-directed learning has consistently more negative outcomes than those achieved in traditional education … On all measures of basic skills, cognitive development and self-esteem, it (student-centred learning) was shown to be vastly inferior to traditional education.”

One of the most respected and influential international tests is the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, held three times since its inception in the mid-’90s, involving 46 countries and testing students at years 4, 8 and 12. On identifying the characteristics of education systems that achieve at the top of the table — the results place Australia in the second 11 — it is possible to identify what leads to success.

Stronger performing systems place a greater emphasis on competitive examinations and testing (which are often used to stream students in terms of ability), give teachers clear and succinct road maps detailing what is to be taught, and expect students to master essential knowledge and understanding associated with the key disciplines at each year level.

Research carried out by German academic Ludger Woessmann also concludes that top-performing TIMSS countries have a robust non-government school sector, which leads to increased competition and pressure to do well, schools have autonomy over hiring, firing and rewarding successful teachers, and the influence of teacher unions is restricted.

While critics of George W. Bush’s initiative No Child Left Behind – whereby federal funding is linked to education systems setting clear objectives in terms of raising standards, students are regularly tested, classroom practice is based on what the research suggests works and there are consequences for underperformance — argue that NCLB has failed, the evidence suggests otherwise.

As noted by US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, setting performance targets, regularly testing students and holding schools accountable have raised standards, as reflected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

She states: “According to NAEP, more reading progress was made by nine-year-olds from 1999 to 2004 than in the previous 28 years combined. Maths scores have reached record highs across the board.”

Given that many overseas education systems have been implementing the types of initiatives on the agenda in Australia for 2008, such as moving to a national curriculum, increased testing and holding schools accountable, it is also vital that we learn from their mistakes.

As argued by the conservative US think tank the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, too much testing, forcing teachers to focus on the basics and imposing a centralised, top-down approach that fails to recognise the unique quality of individual schools can be counterproductive.

Forcing unproven and faddish curriculum change on schools and making them conform to inflexible and intrusive accountability measures can also overwhelm and frustrate teachers, leading to the type of situation evident in Western Australia, where teachers are deserting classrooms and it is impossible to attract newcomers to the profession.

Source: The Australian, Australia
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22998698-7583,00.html