Nearly 8,000 arrive on campus a year early · Increase linked to new laws against age bias

The number of under-18s studying at English universities has gone up by over 50% in the past six years, according to figures that suggest that ambitious teenagers are taking advantage of new anti-discrimination laws to demand an early place.

There are nearly 8,000 under-18s at university - up from less than 5,000 in 2002, figures obtained from the Higher Education Statistics Agency by the Guardian show. The overwhelming majority started only a year early, at 17, but official documents suggest there are up to 100 university students under 16.

Universities have been forced to examine child protection laws that are usually the preserve of schools. Many universities have preferred to resist approaches from children under 18 for fear of the “in loco parentis” role they have to take. But a change to the age discrimination laws in 2006 now means they have to consider all applicants, regardless of age.

Margaret Morrisey, chair of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: “The danger is that while a child may be bright and need stimulation, universities can’t provide for the needs of a child. To push them prematurely into an adult world might not be responsible.”

Universities UK, which represents all higher education institutions (HEIs), last month hosted a conference, Safeguarding Children: Issues for HEIs dealing with under-18s, supported by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

Guidance at the event warned universities to run criminal record checks on staff working closely with under-18s. “The breadth of contact between HEIs and young people under 18 years of age is considerable and growing,” it says.

Julie Walkling, director of student services at London Metropolitan University and chair of Amosshe, the student support organisation which organised the conference, said: “Quite possibly young people are getting more ambitious.” She said that younger students were high achievers, and tended to apply to Russell Group colleges such as Oxford and Cambridge. “In general it’s Russell Group universities which get applications, because we’re talking about prodigies really. The trend will continue - age regulations have shifted how people think about the age at which people can go to university.”

Sufiah Yusof fled Oxford University in 2000, aged 15, after her third-year exams. She was found after a police search, and blamed her parents for too much pressure; she never finished her course and became an administrative assistant for a construction firm. Her younger siblings, Aisha and Iskander, attended Warwick University together at the ages of 17 and 12, graduating in 2002.

Peter Dunn, head of communications at Warwick, said: “We’ve been there we’ve done that, we’re loath to do it again because we want to make sure students have all the opportunities uni can offer. They were challenging circumstances we’d not want to repeat. They did fine, they came out with fine degrees but we’re not sure we’d rush to do it again. At the end of the day university is about the life experience as well as education alone.

“Rather than pushing children into uni too early, the University of Warwick now supports talented children in schools until they are old enough for university.” The university cannot bar under-18s because of anti-age discrimination laws.

This year’s Cambridge university prospectus says: “There is no age requirement for admission … although the vast majority of undergraduates are 18 years or older when they come into residence. All applicants will need to demonstrate that they have the maturity and personal skills to cope with university level study.”

The number of under-18s who accept an offer of a place at the university is between 2- 2.5% of acceptances, a spokesman said. Of those, 71% are 17-year-olds who would turn 18 by January 1 of their first year.

Oxford University said it has 14 students under 18: one is aged 16 and the others are 17.

Degrees of success: young high flyers

Ruth Lawrence graduated from Oxford University aged 13 in 1985, with first-class honours in maths. She was home schooled, and her father rarely left her side at Oxford. She became a professor at 19, but fell out with her dad. Now teaches in Israel and has vowed never to hothouse her own children.

Wang Yinan was 12 when he arrived in the UK from China and within two years was fluent in English. He won a place at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, to study material science two years later in 2005. He had already scored 98% in an Open University maths degree which he took “for fun”.

Adam Spencer found Cambridge University was reluctant to offer him a place when he was aged 13, in 2003, partly because of the expense in screening staff to check that they were safe to work with children. Adam was desperate to study biochemistry and had a clutch of good A-levels, but struggled to find a university place. His parents considered sending him to a college abroad.

Dante Minghella, 12, already has an IQ of 170 (the adult national average is approx 100). Dante last year switched from a state primary, having won a scholarship to a private school and was judged to be “supremely gifted”. He has weekly meetings with an Oxford lecturer who shares his passion for neuroscience and alien life.

Source: Guardian, UK
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2269492,00.html

Parents might be surprised to hear this, but babies analyze language and their environment like miniature mathematicians, says researcher Jenny Saffran.

Newborns are already at work deciphering sounds that make up language, how sounds combine into words, how words combine into sentences and then what words mean, Saffron maintains. “They have to figure it out. They don’t come with English factory installed.”

Saffran, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of UW’s Waisman Center infant learning lab, is the second brain investigator to speak on early brain development as part of the “Brain to Five” community education series sponsored by the Appleton Education Foundation.

She will discuss how babies learn at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Appleton North High School.

In a phone interview this past week before going to a meeting of the International Society of Infant Studies in Vancouver, where researchers from all over the world shared their findings on early learning, Saffran said much goes on behind a baby’s eyes that fascinates researchers.

Her field holds extra challenges, however. “A lot of our research is figuring out what babies know before they can say it,” she said. “We’re studying complex behavior in little people who don’t talk.”

Julie Krause, executive director of the Appleton Education Foundation, hopes for a big turnout for part two of the series.

“We were thrilled when more than 500 people came in March to learn about the stages of child language development,” she said.

“We expect parents, educators and child care providers to be just as enthusiastic about Dr. Saffran’s presentation. She has done fascinating research involving babies’ natural abilities to figure out language and music. We look forward to her opening our eyes to how we can best encourage those innate abilities.”

“How incredible that transition is from being sentient, to not very knowledgeable of how things in their environment will interact and how they can interact with them, to being what a 1-year-old is — curious, exploring and extremely knowledgeable about how language works.”

Saffran, 38 and the mother of two, got hooked on the study of infant cognitive development in high school.

Saffran’s studies focus on what infants are learning and how they do it.

“Rather than just watch babies, we bring them into our lab and give them something to learn,” she said.

In the act of exposing them to language, she said, researchers find out “what they are interested in and what they are able to learn just by listening and being little sponges.”

Saffran, who will share the latest studies by her and others on how babies learn, said she has a particular interest in pinpointing what kind of information babies pick up on in language they hear.

“Part of what they are doing is being little mathematicians and statisticians,” she said. “They keep track of patterns they hear in their environment and do the math and then they hone in on sounds and words, where one word ends and another starts, and grammatical patterns that are important in their native language. By the time babies are 7 to 8 months of age, they are able to find words and pluck them out of a babbling brook of speech.”

Most parents aren’t aware this is an issue, or that their infant is remarkably skilled at picking out patterns.

“Initially, when I tell parents their babies’ brains are doing statistics, they look at me like I’m crazy, but later it makes lots of sense. There are a lot of things babies are picking up on without being aware of that at all. Most of what babies learn is not because it is being taught in any conscious way by parents.”

Saffran also has learned that as babies listen to us talk they predict the language to come. “They actually make guesses about what we will say next,” Saffran said. “They are extraordinarily actively engaged in their environment. That’s why they are such great learners.”

“They can’t learn if they don’t get talked to,” she said. “There is something about having someone respond to you and you to them that is a powerful thing.”

She said some think a young child’s language development in English will be delayed if he or she is exposed to another language in the home. “That is not a problem. A lot of exciting new data suggests the benefits really outweigh the costs.”

Saffran said she encourages parents to rein in their obsession to provide their baby with the most sophisticated or expensive “learning” aids. “The average toilet paper roll is just as stimulating as a $40 toy.”

Source: Appleton Post Crescent, USA
http://tinyurl.com/2jcea6

Michael Ferraro has a major-league swing in a tee-ball-size body, pounding one pitch after another into the back net of the batting cage.

He’s 7 years old and works out with two former professional baseball players as many as five times a month.

“He’s a good little listener, and he takes what you tell him and puts it into play,” says Billy Horton, a former minor-league player who now runs Cactus Athletic Camps, which offers clinics and private instruction, in Phoenix.

In the past decade, the number of parents hiring professional trainers for their grade-school athletes has exploded, experts say. No one tracks the figures nationwide, but coaches say their business has doubled or tripled in that time.

Parents shell out $50 to $100 an hour for individual coaching in baseball, soccer, basketball and hockey. And they send their youngsters to camps, clinics and places such as Tempe’s Arizona World of Baseball, where children work with former pros. Even city parks and recreation departments are hiring former pros to give lessons at batting cages.

“This has become big business,” says Gregg Heinzmann, director of the Youth Sports Research Council at Rutgers University.

Some experts worry that too much professional coaching and kids specializing in one sport could put too much pressure on young athletes and take the fun out of playing.

Although there are parents who hire personal coaches to improve their child’s chances of earning a college scholarship, if not a pro career, many say they want to help their kids improve at the games they love.

“I don’t push him,” says Michael’s dad, Mike Ferraro, as he and Horton watch the youth in the batting cage. “I just say, ‘Do you want to get a lesson?’ If he doesn’t feel like it, we don’t do it.

“I just want him to enjoy himself. I’d rather he be the best he can be.”

Coaches and parents cite good reasons for professional training: Kids may get little individual training on teams of 10 or 20 players, depending on the sport. And volunteer coaches often don’t have the technical expertise of professionals. Few sports are fun if a young athlete is experiencing little success.

When Sean Whyte, a former pro hockey player, began coaching at Ozzie Ice in Phoenix in 2001, he worked with hundreds of kids. This year, he’s on track to coach more than 1,000 youngsters.

Like most coaches, his business comes from referrals.

“I tell parents, ‘If your child truly loves it, give them every opportunity you can afford to help your child reach their full potential,’ ” Whyte says. He cautions parents that private lessons will not make their child an instant star.

The goal should be to improve basic skills that lead to proficiency and a lifelong love of the game.

Professional coaching is not a must, Horton and Whyte agree, but it can help. They work with kids as young as 4 and up through college age.

It’s only natural that parents want to help their young athletes improve, Horton says. In his youth, his mother would scrape together $10 in quarters so he could practice at the batting cages at Golf N’ Stuff in Phoenix.

Some parents bring their kids in for a few lessons at the start of the season; others come regularly all year.

But like Whyte, Horton also cautions parents, “I’m not trying to build this child into a professional athlete. I’m trying to build confidence in this child.”

1-sport pitfalls

Despite the growing numbers of private coaches, Heinzmann of Rutgers University finds the trend troubling. He has conducted clinics on youth sports for 20,000 parents and coaches, most recently in Glendale.

“We see it exploding in recent years from the standpoint of not only parents hiring privatized instruction, but children focusing on one sport to the exclusion of all others and at younger and younger ages,” he says.

A generation ago, the ideal was to earn varsity letters in three sports in high school, Heinzmann says. Now that children are pursuing one sport, they’re suffering more overuse injuries and burning out sooner.

He wonders if it’s worth it.

About 70 percent of kids involved in sports drop out before they turn 13, according to a recent study by Richard Stratton of Virginia Tech’s Department of Health and Physical Education. Just 2 percent of high-school athletes earn scholarships and play in college, Heinzmann says. And the chances of anyone making it to the pros are 0.1 percent - that’s one in 1,000.

Parents put too much pressure on their kids by investing in professional coaching, says Chad Thibodeaux, a longtime coach and host of Kids and Sports radio show on KGME-AM (910).

On the air, parents often compare a professional coach with a math tutor, a comparison Thibodeaux says misses the mark. A child needs to know math, he points out. A child does not need to know how to throw a fastball.

A fairer comparison would be music or drama lessons. Odds are as low that a child who takes piano lessons from a professional will wind up with a scholarship or playing to crowded concert halls.

“There’s this underlying societal pressure to keep up with the Joneses, not just in sports but also in academia and the arts,” Heinzmann says.

Professional coaching may be right for a child intent on making a club team or a high-school student in the running for a scholarship, Heinzmann says. But he doesn’t think younger kids need such training on a regular basis.

Thibodeaux says to wait until a child is at least 12 and even then only if the child wants to do it and parents can afford it.

Prior to turning 12, kids should be in recreational leagues where they can have fun while they work on fundamental skills, Thibodeaux says. Little kids should be going out for pizza with their teammates, he says, not worrying about their stats.

First up in Horton’s batting cage is 14-year-old Jeff Clasen, who plays for the Scottsdale Storm and plans to try out next year at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix.

“Remember, knob to the ball, not knob up,” Horton says, and Jeff nails the ball.

Jeff’s dad, Steve Clasen of Paradise Valley, says he brought his son to Horton for help during a hitting slump about a year ago. Jeff has no aspirations to play baseball beyond high school; he simply enjoys the game. But he enjoys it more when he’s hitting well - thus, the regular lessons with Horton.

His 5-year-old son, John, is too young for lessons, Clasen says. He’s having fun on his tee-ball team.

Bart Shillingburg of Scottsdale says his sons, 9-year-old Kyle and 7-year-old Alec, seem to take instruction better from someone else. He played ball in high school, but he says, “I don’t have all the techniques that Billy (Horton) or these other guys have.” This is Kyle’s second lesson with Horton and Alec’s first.

The boys play basketball and football in the off-season, which puts them at a disadvantage come tryouts for Little League. They compete for spots on teams with boys who play baseball year-round.

Like little Michael Ferraro with his major-league swing. He started playing baseball at age 3 1/2. Right now, he plays with 9- and 10-year-olds, some twice his size. Michael also trains with Dax Jones, formerly of the San Francisco Giants.

In Horton’s batting cage, the coach pitches a fastball right by Michael.

“He’s throwing gas at you, son!” his dad says, laughing.

Michael grins.

“Who’s the best hitter in Arizona?” Horton asks.

“Me!” Michael says and sends the next fastball flying.

Source: Arizona Republic, AZ
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0331kidstrain0331.html

Mothers who shout or smack are more likely to have toddlers with sleep difficulties - but researchers do not know if the aggressive parenting style is a cause or effect of the problems.

A pediatrician from Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital has analysed data from 4600 families to see if parenting methods had any impact on the sleep behaviour of children between the ages of one and three.

Harriet Hiscock found children were nearly twice as likely to have sleep problems that persisted through the toddler years if their mother’s parenting style was “hostile” - characterised by yelling or physical punishment such as smacking - rather than “warm”.

But her research has opened a chicken-and-egg debate because it is not clear whether the sleep problems are caused by the mothers’ parenting, or if the frazzled mothers have resorted to shouting at their sleep-deprived, cranky children.

“It’s always a cause-and-effect argument and you can’t really conclude from this which one occurs first,” Dr Hiscock said.

She found the biggest predictor of persistent sleep problems was a child’s health.

Babies and toddlers who have chronic health problems such as asthma or autism were more than three times more likely to suffer sleep problems than healthy children.

The data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children found that 75 per cent of young children had no sleep issues.

Two-thirds of sleeping problems reported at age one were resolved by the second study, but about one in 20 had sleep problems that persisted over the years.

Mothers’ parenting style was not a big factor in sleep problems at the age of one, but became an issue by the second study.

Source: The Age, Australia
http://tinyurl.com/2gklfl

Asked by Gordon Brown to investigate the new dangers to children being brought up in the digital age, Tanya Byron last week produced a 224-page report. The child psychologist’s recommendations included a cinema-style system of classification for video games and a thorough public education campaign. However, she warns that protecting children against all risks stunts their development and an important part of growing up is learning to assess and deal with danger

Shortly before she published a report last week on keeping children safe in the online age, Dr Tanya Byron was invited to lunch with Gordon Brown at Chequers. It was a family affair: Byron, her husband Bruce, who plays DC Terry Perkins in The Bill, and their two children, Lily, 12, and Jack, 10, all went along.

Lunch at the prime minister’s country estate is the sort of occasion when any parent would want their little ones to be bright, presentable and on their best behaviour. But not even Byron, a child psychologist who has advised millions on parenting through her television series, is immune from modest rebellion.

“My son piped up just before we were going and he said, ‘Mummy, I could take my PlayStation and I could really make you scared in front of the prime minister’.”

He could. The prospect of son Jack smuggling in some dodgy game and whipping out his portable PlayStation to blast away in front of the prime minister had Byron “feeling slightly twitchy”. That’s not surprising given that she was about to advise Brown on how to protect young children from unsuitable computer material. But in typical calm style she simply said: “No, darling. You don’t play those games, so let’s not go there.”

A tall, curvaceous woman with wide eyes and a warm smile, Byron must be as annoying as hell to all those postfeministas who say you can’t have it all. She is clever, articulate, attractive and a natural performer, as well as being a mother and government adviser.

Although most people know her from television programmes such as Little Angels and The House of Tiny Tearaways, she is no pop-psycho with more beauty than brains. She did her first degree at York, a masters at University College London and a doctorate at University College hospital and Surrey University.

For 18 years she worked in the National Health Service, rising to be a consultant for children with severe mental disorders. She still works one day a week as a consultant in child mental health, although most of her time is taken up filming with the BBC.

Glamour, fame, acclaim – yet Byron, 41, also retains the common sense of an ordinary mum: making her the perfect candidate for a report into children growing up in a world where the risks, as well as benefits, of the internet and computer games are all-pervasive.

“When I came to doing the report . . . concerns were very much fuelled by a lack of understanding of the technology. People were asking, is it all big, bad and scary out there? I know a lot more than I did six months ago. It’s made me feel more positive and confident and less anxious.”

Of course she recognises the dangers – from paedophiles to porn, violence and cyberbullying. In her report, which arrived with much ministerial fanfare last week, she carefully examines the scientific evidence about how children are affected by nasty computer games or hardcore porn. Research, she concludes, shows mixed results.

Although, for example, there is a correlation between aggression and playing violent computer games, it’s not clear that there is a causal relationship – that violent games make children more violent. Convenient, since any kind of ban would be a political minefield. In person, though, she is more forthright. “I’m really clear that adult content is harmful and inappropriate for young children particularly,” she says. “They do not have the neural networks in place to be able to critically evaluate the content, to differentiate fantasy from reality.”

Byron would like the law on such matters to be clearer and to be applied with more vigour: “I am saying clarify the law . . . be clear about when there is content on websites that is breaking the law.”

She also encourages parents to challenge the classification of computer games if they think they are inappropriate: “It’s important to have a system where there can be a challenge, where people can complain.”

A less astute person might have let such conclusions suck them into recommending censorship of violent games or websites. Byron knows that won’t work: “If you go down the censorship route, the content would still be there somewhere. Children would go online to websites outside the UK, to unmoderated sites.” And parents, already struggling to keep up, might have even less idea what their youngsters are doing.

“The rapid pace at which new media are evolving has left adults and children stranded either side of a generational digital divide,” she says. Older people may still regard the internet as a parallel universe that somehow arrives through a machine at the office or home, but for youngsters it’s a seamless part of their lives. They are the cyborg generation.

The answer, Byron believes, is to trust in the better side of human nature. Families can navigate the risks provided they are informed and sensible. “I’m more of a ‘half-full’ girl than a ‘half-empty’ girl. That’s how I like to live life,” she explains.

Her report, which runs to more than 200 pages, is packed with recommendations some of which the government has promised to adopt. Key measures include a UK council on child internet safety to develop voluntary codes of practice for the industry and better information for the public; teaching adults about “parental control” systems on computers; a new classification of computer games like those used for films; and courses in schools to teach children “e-safety”.

It’s hard to argue against any of it (although whether the portly public sector needs yet another quango is debatable). Byron, using common sense, already regulates her children’s use of computers: “They don’t have a computer in their own rooms. We have got some in the office and one downstairs in the kitchen. Gaming and going online is good . . . but in a way that is right for their age and stage of development. It’s something you do after your homework. It never takes place instead of a family meal. When my son is gaming and I’m cooking, he’s there and I know what he’s doing.”

Her daughter, two years older, is given more leeway and Byron admits that she does not know exactly what her daughter does online: “We have a good relationship and I respect her privacy. In the same way I don’t know entirely what’s in her diary. But I know my child; I know when something has upset them or when they are distressed.”

They talk, they work it out, just as they would some other problem.

That, in a nutshell, is how Byron believes parents should approach bringing up children in the digital age. You can buy software to block websites, you can spy on children’s internet history, you can restrict access when they are young – but in the end children are going to go out into the big wide world and need to be able to look after themselves.

“We live in a risk-averse culture, but risk is a developmental imperative of childhood and I think we need to recognise that. It’s about fostering the independent child. What I want to get across is that [dealing with the online world] is similar to how we would parent children in the offline world.”

That old world has its own temptations, for adults as well as children. It’s clear that Byron enjoys the cameras and corridors of power: “I really like advising politicians. I really liked saying to the PM this morning, ‘The UK child internet safety council, you set it up, we could take a global lead, what do you reckon?’ And he says, ‘Okay’.”

Is she going to be on the internet safety council? “Oh no,” she laughs. “I’m outta here. It’s all about kids for me. I’d much rather work on behalf of children.” So she doesn’t want to be a politician? She gives that big disarming smile again: “Do you know, I really like advising them…”

She has already become too much of a politician to say no.

Source: Times Online, UK
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3645034.ece

The Government’s latest guru, Dr Tanya Byron – from the BBC parenting series Little Angels – has completed a report into children’s safety in the New Media age.

By “safety” the report means not only protection from invisible online predators, but avoiding any material that may be overly aggressive or just plain inappropriate for young minds.

Of special concern are video-game classifications and uninhibited online surfing.

When it comes to games, the advice is robust.

Parents are urged not to let children play video games alone in their bedrooms but to insist they play them only in the living room or kitchen, where they can be better monitored.

A 2006 poll of 1,300 families found that seven in ten children had their own television while six in ten had a games console. Yet countless studies show that children with bedroom TVs score lower on school tests and are more likely to have sleep problems.

But those two words “insist” and “monitor” really stand out in Dr Tanya’s report.

The reason TVs and games consoles will stay in bedrooms, despite Dr Tanya’s best efforts, is clear if you’ve ever watched the excellent and addictive BBC show Honey We’re Killing The Kids: insisting on no TV in the bedroom equals sulks, door-slamming, threats to leave home and silent family dinners.

Are you brave enough to risk that?

As for monitoring – namely peering over the shoulder to watch the computer screen as an already sulky ten-year-old explores Bebo or the like – it is a terrifying prospect for so many parents.

Dr Tanya, I wish this report would make a difference but there’s absolutely no chance the majority will act on your well thought-out, well intentioned recommendations.

I can already hear the maternal opt-out cries of: “He plays Doom in his best mate’s room so what’s the point?”

Anyway, it has become more difficult to work out what is unsuitable for our offspring to watch even when we’re in the same room. In just a generation the phrase “not in front of the children” has all but died out.

Everything’s fine so long as it’s before the sanctified watershed.

On Good Friday the BBC confused and then outraged parents when a main character in EastEnders was shown being buried alive, a full hour before ‘family’ TV time officially ends.

The blurring of lines between adult-only and child-friendly entertainment caught me out too this week. I merrily sat down with my seven- and five-year-old daughters to watch Austin Powers, the spoof spy film set in the Sixties. I thought it would be silly, slapstick viewing.

In fact it was grossly inappropriate.

Now my eldest, Alex, is asking “What’s a Mojo?” and “Why do women suck chess pieces?” Dr Tanya’s research has shown that parents are most worried by predators and children are most concerned by cyber-bullying.

What we should all be concerned about is our diabolical laziness.

As a parenting nation we’re emotionally obese, cowardly and slavishly reliant on the very technology that could seriously damage a generation.

Source: Daily Mail, UK
http://tinyurl.com/35brzv

Author delves into the differences in which boys should be raised in It’s a Boy

If you truly believe that there is no difference be- tween boys and girls, stop reading here. However, if you think that there are biological factors that make a difference in how boys and girls grow up and experience the world, then Michael Thompson’s new book may be for you.

Thompson’s premise is not very radical: While males and females have lots in common and are both valuable to society, there are certain differences that influence how they learn and grow from babies to adulthood. Boys learn better in active situations, whereas young girls have better focus in traditional educational settings. Boys are more likely to roughhouse with their friends, not because they are violent but because they connect better with each other via physical activity rather than verbal communication. And boys generally have a different emotional response to stress than do girls.

To raise boys well, parents and teachers need to understand what makes boys tick and how they can use boys’ natural inclinations to bring out the best in them. Thompson outlines these natural tendencies and makes useful suggestions for raising our sons to become healthy, productive men. He also tackles tough social issues, such as how to deal with different parenting styles (for example, some moms let their boys play with toy guns, some don’t); difficult teen issues (suicide and destructive behaviors); and basic inclinations (such as why boys love dinosaurs, trading cards and video games). But the greatest value is Thompson’s common sense approach to the fears parents often have with their boys, reassuring us that their natural tendencies are not “bad,” nor are they indicators of bad parenting. As he notes, “You should not have to feel that your son’s impulsiveness or activity levels are either (1) your fault or (2) signs that he is growing up to be an ax murderer. He is almost certainly not. If play-fighting and whacking another child (and I don’t mean that in the Mafia sense of the word) on the playground were signs of future aggression, then most men would be murderous adults, and they are not.”

Source: The Free Lance-Star, VA
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/032008/03302008/364554

Are you an “ambitious parent” keen to try any new ideas to benefit your child’s educational development and future success?

We have heard of brain training computer games giving young minds a cerebral workout with impressive results, improving their maths and concentration skills in the classroom.

But what about encouraging your child to learn a musical instrument to help stimulate their creative processes and possibly boost their school performance?

It sounds contrived, but there is some logic supporting this approach.

Studies have been carried out in this field in Canada, where - in one case - researchers found musically trained children (aged four to six) performed better in memory tests than those who had no instrument lessons over the course of the year-long programme.

In another study, Professor Glenn Schellenberg of the University of Toronto, found that the IQ scores of six-year-olds who had taken keyboard or voice lessons were, on average, three points higher than normal.

The “Mozart effect” theory established by psychologists in 1994 claimed that soaking up the music of the 18th century composer could make children more intelligent.

CD sales soared across the globe as parents snapped up Mozart’s masterpieces for toddler mass consumption.

The theory was later debunked, but parents should not feel short-changed.

Professor Raymond MacDonald who specialises in musical psychology said. “There is now considerable evidence that taking part in musical activities can influence other areas of our development.

“And there is no doubt that music can play a very important role in a young child’s development.”

Curriculum commitment

He recalls a recent visit to the Centre for Brain Imaging at the University of Texas in San Antonio.

“The quote I remember from the director of the centre was that ‘when we engage in musical participation the whole brain lights up like a Christmas tree’,” he said.

However, he stresses that no-one has yet been able to prove a causal link between music and achievement in other subjects among children.

It is hardly surprising then that the government is incorporating more music and cultural activities into the national curriculum.

It is committed to enabling every Key Stage 2 pupil to learn a musical instrument or to receive specialist vocal tuition.

Just over a year ago the government ploughed £10m into a national campaign to get primary school children and their teachers singing more.

The thinking behind this is that learning song lyrics can improve mental agility and reading skills.

The government’s singing ambassador Howard Goodall asserted that music could be used to reinforce challenging concepts, numeracy, motor skills and language development.

He said: “When children are singing they are taking in information and training the brain but they don’t think they are, they think they are just having fun.”

Social gains

Funding is available for the project to continue until 2011 through Sing Up - the organisation which is taking forward the government’s plans to get children singing every day in primary schools.

Sing Up programme director Baz Chapman said: “We think singing is not something that should be tagged onto the curriculum but has a role in itself.

“We did an informal survey of top performing primary schools and they all did singing on a daily basis.

“I think there are a number of areas that music helps with - and social development is key.

“A number of studies show that a child who has experienced a lot of musical and cultural activities is a more creative learner and is more well rounded.

“In the future, creative thinkers are going to be absolutely crucial alongside academic thinkers.”

So even if your child does not become an academic genius, at least they will have had some fun learning to play an instrument and exercised their lungs.

They may even develop an appreciation of music, although it may not be quite to your tastes.

Prof MacDonald said: “Music is not a panacea. You can’t just say ’sending my son to violin lessons will automatically give him higher marks in maths’ because it’s a complex process.

And one last thought. If your eardrums are being ambushed by your child’s early attempts to “play” the violin or piano - which, let’s face it, can be excruciating - at least you can reassure yourself that it will bring more long-term benefits than watching television. (…)

Source: BBC News, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7319024.stm

It’s the middle of the night, you’ve just fed your baby and you’re both feeling dozy; wouldn’t it be nice to drop off to sleep together in bed? Well, yes - and no. Welcome to the contentious issue of co-sleeping.

As with every other parenting decision you’re likely to make, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Robin Barker, child and family health nurse and author of Baby Love, says: “Unfortunately sleep has become extremely political and it’s become a metaphor for the sort of parent you are.

“You’ve got two ends of the spectrum … the end who says you must sleep with your baby and attend to your baby all the time, and you must not do controlled crying because it can cause brain damage and … the other end who say this is a lot of nonsense - if you don’t want to sleep with your baby, don’t [and] do controlled crying for a few nights as it mostly works.”

Whether you decide to co-sleep with your baby out of principle or a longing for a decent night’s sleep, there are risks. The bed-sharing circumstances are the key, says Dr Jeanine Young, a spokeswoman for SIDS and Kids, and nursing director of research at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Brisbane. There are well-documented circumstances in which co-sleeping is risky, she says, but “if you are a breastfeeding, non-smoking mother, there is no strong evidence to suggest - unless your child has other risk factors, like they’ve been born prematurely or they are of low birth weight - that your baby is at an increased risk.

“Some studies have demonstrated that it may even be protective. We do not have enough evidence to say, ‘Thou shalt not bed-share.“‘

Barker says if safe-sleeping guidelines are in place, then it’s OK to co-sleep. “In relation to co-sleeping as a parenting style - a la attachment parenting - it is certainly an option but I still believe that in our society most people prefer not to sleep on a regular basis with their babies and children,” she says.

Why? “Western lifestyle, probably. Certainly in my practice, when I was at work, most people didn’t want to permanently sleep with their babies because they wanted the bed to themselves; they wanted their husbands to themselves and they didn’t want the [co-]sleeping as a permanent arrangement.”

Barker has a warning for parents who co-sleep early on but don’t want to continue: “Just make sure your baby’s not in your bed after about three months because the longer they’re in bed after that the more entrenched it becomes. There is no easy way of getting an older baby or toddler out of your bed. It involves pain.”

Reasons for co-sleeping include cultural practices, personal choice or simply practicality: there may be only one bed to be shared by mum, dad, baby, siblings and pets. Sadly, there is also another reason. “What we’re finding in the indigenous communities,” Young says, “is that a lot of mothers don’t want to leave babies to sleep separately because they’re afraid of abuse - and we have to respect that.” For co-sleeping in busy beds, a bassinet beside mum on the bed is recommended.

If a parent chooses to bed-share, Young says, there are guidelines they should follow, which are listed on the website www.sidsandkids.org. As she points out, “Babies [still] die in cots [and] babies are more likely to be placed prone if they are in a cot. Often if they’re in a bed-sharing environment, they’ve been put on their back because they’re breastfeeding.

“From an anthropological point of view, bed-sharing is the norm and is for 90 per cent of the world’s population,” Young says. “It’s only Western industrialised societies that conceptualise separate sleeping as the norm and that’s really only in the last 200 years. Then you have to look at SIDS rates; in China, for example, they don’t have a word for SIDS in the language.”

What we don’t do enough of in Australia, she says, is room share. “The safest place for a baby to sleep is in a cot beside the parents’ bed for the first six to 12 months of life,” Young says.

Dr Kei Lui, director of newborn care at the Royal Hospital for Women, says the hospital views co-sleeping as a parental choice. For newborns in the hospital, he says: “Co-sleeping is not practical because of safety - not that we are against it.” Reasons involve maternal alertness: a women who has just undergone a prolonged labour (and been given pain-relieving drugs) or a woman who has had a caesarean may have “reduced responses” towards her baby.

Hannah Dahlen, secretary of the NSW Midwives Association, says if guidelines are followed there can be benefits (more sleep, easier breastfeeding). Parents who want to co-sleep could put their mattress on the floor or invest in a king-size bed, she says.

Other risks of long-term co-sleeping (and the continual breastfeeding that can accompany it), according to Barker, are child tooth decay and sleep deprivation for the mother.

However, she adds: “In the first three months, when babies are awake a lot and crying at night, sometimes sleeping with them is the only way everyone’s going to get some sleep.”

Guidelines for sharing a bed

* Put baby on the back to sleep (not the tummy or side).
* Use a firm mattress.
* Make sure bedding cannot cover baby’s face.
* Put baby at the side of one parent, not between two parents.
* Do not put baby close to the edge of the bed or use pillows to prevent rolling off. Put mattress on floor instead.
* Pushing the bed against a wall can be hazardous.
* As an alternative to bedding, a safe infant sleeping bag may be used.
* Side-car cots that attach to the side of the bed provide closeness to enhance breastfeeding, while still giving baby a separate surface.

Avoid co-sleeping where…

* The parent is a smoker.
* There is adult bedding - doonas or pillows - that could cover a baby.
* The baby could be trapped between the wall and the bed, could fall out of the bed or could be rolled on.
* The parent is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or is overly tired.
* There are other children or pets inthe bed.
* The sleep surface is a waterbed, beanbag, sofa or sagging mattress.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
http://tinyurl.com/34phdy

Many parents are convinced that the brains of their teenage offspring are different than those of children and adults. New data confirms that this is the case. An article by Jay N. Giedd, MD, of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), published in Journal of Adolescent Health describes how brain changes in the adolescent brain impact cognition, emotion and behavior.

Dr. Giedd reviews the results from the NIMH Longitudinal Brain Imaging Project. This study and others indicate that gray matter increases in volume until approximately the early teens and then decreases until old age. Pinning down these differences in a rigorous way had been elusive until MRI was developed, offering the capacity to provide extremely accurate quantifications of brain anatomy and physiology without the use of ionizing radiation.

Writing in the article, Dr. Giedd comments, “Adolescence is a time of substantial neurobiological and behavioral change, but the teen brain is not a broken or defective adult brain. The adaptive potential of the overproduction/selective elimination process, increased connectivity and integration of disparate brain functions, changing reward systems and frontal/limbic balance, and the accompanying behaviors of separation from family of origin, increased risk taking, and increased sensation seeking have been highly adaptive in our past and may be so in our future. These changes and the enormous plasticity of the teen brain make adolescence a time of great risk and great opportunity.”

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth R. McAnarney MD, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, comments, “Finally neuroscientists are able to go under the ‘…leathery membrane, surrounded by a protective moat of fluid, and completely encased in bone…’ to provide new insights into brain development. Changes in the brain during childhood and adolescent development that are being documented through exquisite imaging by Giedd and others hold the promise for the development of hypotheses about the potential origins of behaviors that we have observed clinically for years….”

“Novelty seeking/sensation seeking and risk taking,” Dr. McAnarney continues, “is the basis for considerable growth during adolescence, as well as for the seemingly reckless behavior of some adolescents. Novelty seeking/sensation seeking and risk taking are topics of growing interest as adolescent brain development is defined better and as morbidity from adolescent risk taking mounts….The implication of our growing knowledge of brain–behavior mechanisms of adolescent conditions should provide insights into the risk of particular adolescents for morbidity and mortality. Preliminary data are promising so that as we begin to understand the complexity of and specificity of each of these conditions, we shall be able to diagnose and treat conditions earlier.”

The NIMH Longitudinal Brain Imaging Project began in 1989. Participants visit the NIMH at approximately two-year intervals for brain imaging, neuropsychological and behavioral assessment and collection of DNA. As of September 2007, approximately 5000 scans from 2000 subjects have been acquired. Of these, 387 subjects, aged 3 to 27 years, have remained free of any psychopathology and serve as the models for typical brain development.

Three themes have emerged from this and other studies in this new era of adolescent neuroscience. The first is functional and structural increases in connectivity and integrative processing as distributed brain modules become more and more integrated. Using a literary metaphor, maturation would not be the addition of new letters but rather of combining earlier formed letters into words, and then words into sentences and then sentences into paragraphs.

The second is a general pattern of childhood peaks of gray matter (frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe and occipital lobe) followed by adolescent declines. As parts of the brain are overdeveloped and then discarded, the structure of the brain becomes more refined.

The third theme is a changing balance between limbic/subcortical and frontal lobe functions that extends well into young adulthood as different cognitive and emotional systems mature at different rates. The cognitive and behavioral changes taking place during adolescence may be understood from the perspective of increased “executive” functioning, a term encompassing a broad array of abilities, including attention, response inhibition, regulation of emotion, organization and long-range planning. (…)

Source: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328112127.htm