My 9-year-old son recently declared that he wanted to get rid of his little-kid toys.

For years, our house has been cluttered with hundreds of small objects scattered about by my son.

Picking them up, and using all kinds of incentives and/or punishments to get him to collect them, has been mostly a losing battle.

“Don’t worry,” our friends told us. “It won’t always be like this. He’ll lose interest in all those toys and he’ll have just a few things.”

Well, it finally happened. My son announced the big decision and my wife, a dedicated if not entirely successful anti-clutter activist, was thrilled. We put the air conditioner on high and spent hours sorting through all his stuff.

It was a sad moment. Another vestige of his early childhood was going the way of the, well, dinosaur (he tossed many of those in the giveaway bin). But with all that space suddenly opened up, it was hard to stay gloomy for long.

He said good-bye to hundreds of little cars and blocks and dozens of plastic animals and dragons. The most surprising things he dumped were his Legos, which were his favorite toy until a few months ago.

He announced, “I’m too old to play with Legos.”

Only a few were spared. “These are cooler than the other ones,” he said, holding a few cylinder-shaped attachments. “They hold more weaponry.”

That was a little out of character, given that my son is generally a pacifist, even if he does like watching the Military Channel. But who could argue?

Finally, he revealed the real motivation for the purge. It gave me a jolt, because it shows he’s seriously anticipating the new demands placed on a fourth-grader.

“I need more space on my desk to do homework,” he said.

Indeed, the top of his desk is now cleared off and ready for action. The Legos went to a friend who still plays with them, and other bins went to a grateful new mom.

Now, my son says, his play will focus on a few areas. He has three Nintendo game players and he’s begun organizing his Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, his Pokemon cards and his baseball cards.

We have yet to trip over those. And they don’t get stuck in the vacuum.

Source: The Star-Ledger - NJ.com, NJ
http://blog.nj.com/parentalguidance/2008/07/my_tweener_son_gets_rid_of_his.html

Three years after the president of Harvard, Lawrence H. Summers, got into trouble for questioning women’s “intrinsic aptitude” for science and engineering — and 16 years after the talking Barbie doll proclaimed that “math class is tough” — a study paid for by the National Science Foundation has found that girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests.

Although boys in high school performed better than girls in math 20 years ago, the researchers found, that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many.

“Now that enrollment in advanced math courses is equalized, we don’t see gender differences in test performance,” said Marcia C. Linn of the University of California, Berkeley, a co-author of the study. “But people are surprised by these findings, which suggests to me that the stereotypes are still there.”

The findings, reported in the July 25 issue of Science magazine, are based on math scores from seven million students in 10 states, tested in accordance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys. (To their dismay, the researchers found that the tests in the 10 states did not include a single question requiring complex problem-solving, forcing them to use a national assessment test for that portion of their research.)

Janet Hyde, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who led the study, said the persistent stereotypes about girls and math had taken a toll.

“The stereotype that boys do better at math is still held widely by teachers and parents,” Dr. Hyde said. “And teachers and parents guide girls, giving them advice about what courses to take, what careers to pursue. I still hear anecdotes about guidance counselors steering girls away from engineering, telling them they won’t be able to do the math.”

Girls are still underrepresented in high school physics classes and, as noted by Dr. Summers, who resigned in 2006, in the highest levels of physics, chemistry and engineering, which require advanced math skills.

The study also analyzed the gender gap on the math section of the SAT. Rather than proving boys’ superior talent for math, the study found, the difference is probably attributable to a skewed pool of test takers. The SAT is taken primarily by seniors bound for college, and since more girls than boys go to college, about 100,000 more girls than boys take the test, including lower-achieving girls who bring down the girls’ average score.

On the ACT, another college entrance test, the study said, the gender gap in math scores disappeared in Colorado and Illinois after the states began requiring all students to take the test.

Source: New York Times, United States
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/education/25math.html?ref=us

According to a new report, nine out of 10 food products aimed at children provide poor nutritional quality, with more than half making health claims.

Obesity Reviews, a UK-based journal, researched 367 food items in Canadian supermarkets (excluding confectionary, soft drinks and bakery items), and found that about 89 per cent, aimed specifically at children, had a poor nutritional content — because of high levels of sugar, fat and sodium.

The products included in the study were bought from a national supermarket chain in 2005 and had to meet very specific criteria.

Each item had to be clearly targeted towards children. Included in the study were products that promoted fun and play, had a cartoon image on the front of the box, or were linked to children’s films, TV programs and merchandise.

The study found that 70 per cent of these products had higher than recommended sugar levels, 23 per cent had higher than recommended fat levels, and 17 per cent contained higher than recommended salt levels.

Despite this, 62 per cent of them made positive claims about their nutritional value on the front of the packet.

According to University of Calgary professor Charlene Elliott, these are alarming figures.

While caregivers are likely to purchase products that they hope their children will like, it clearly can result in a less nutritious diet than they may realize, Elliott said in a release. Having a healthy diet is especially important given the current rates of childhood obesity, she added.

Around 35 per cent of children in Canada suffer from excess body weight, which is linked to a range of health concerns including Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and some forms of cancer.

If a parent sees a product that makes specific nutritional claims, they may assume that the whole product is nutritious, Elliott said, noting that the study showed that this is definitely not true in the vast majority of cases.

Elliott, who is a trustee of the Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition, believes added confusion can have bad results on the health of children.

Parents may have questions about which packaged foods are good for their children, she said. Yet certain nutritional claims may add to the confusion, as they can mislead people into thinking the whole product is nutritious.

Only 11 per cent of the tested products provided good nutritional value, the report showed.

North Shore News, Canada
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/parenting/story.html?id=e553cdce-65e8-4cc4-84fc-38a7c2cdff0c

Suppose you were a baby who was handed over to a stranger for several days. You would probably cry, cling and despair over the loss of your parents. You would have a difficult time sleeping, and perhaps refuse to eat. When you were returned to your parents, you would be afraid to trust them, worried that they would hand you over to someone else again.

NBC’s new series, The Baby Borrowers, asks five teen couples to set up a home, get a job and care for a baby. A nanny stands by, but the nanny isn’t any more familiar with the babies than the teens are. Parents observe and “score” the teens’ parenting skills.

In the episode that aired July 2, one child cried constantly in the arms of the teen “father”; the teen mother couldn’t handle the crying and refused to care for the child. The couple argued over who would diaper the child, and who would pick him up when he cried. One of the real parents became angry over her child’s treatment but not enough to withdraw him from the show.

The show is meant to help the young participants see if they can handle the responsibilities of parenting and to test their relationships. Nonetheless, this is a shocking way to treat babies. Zero To Three, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting the healthy development of infants, toddlers and their families, has stated that The Baby Borrowers “exploits young children with potential harmful consequences.”

Early childhood specialists at Children’s Institute agree. Research on infant brain development and attachment theory proves that infancy is the period when children learn to trust or mistrust the adult world. It is the time when children learn whether their feelings are important or not.

Working parents entrust their children to caregivers. However, quality child care providers know the importance of gentle transitions from parents to caregivers and of continuity of care for the child. Quality child care centers assign one caregiver to each child and family, and they make sure the caregiver-child-parent relationship is uninterrupted — optimally until the child turns 3.

At Children’s Institute, we provide research-based training and work with early care and education professionals who seek current information on how to increase the quality of care for infants and toddlers. During our sessions, we are impressed by the enthusiasm of caregivers who want to understand more deeply the links between brain development, relationships and healthy social-emotional growth.

Knowledgeable caregivers understand that babies must be protected, and not exploited in the pursuit of entertainment.

Source: Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, NY
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080724/OPINION02/807240348/1039/OPINION

My daughter will turn five years old two days before the new school year starts.

I didn’t think about this much when she entered her first year of preschool, but now as she is about to start kindergarten I suddenly started questioning whether or not she is truly ready.

It all started when I was chatting with some of the other preschool moms one day. We were comparing our children’s letter writing.

I was pretty surprised to see that many kids in my daughter’s class had much better handwriting and easily kept those letters between the lines.

Geez. Addie doesn’t really enjoy writing her “sight” words over and over. And I don’t really enjoy trying to get her to do it. I want her to have a love of learning and be excited about it, not moan over writing sight words.

After that day, the stage was set for my next worry project. (My husband thinks I purposely think of things to worry about and move from one worry to another.)

I remember getting all those birthday invitations last year for kids who were turning five in October and November. Addie had just turned four. That’s a big gap, and at this age I think it makes a big difference.

I am not worried about my daughter socially. Verbally, her vocabulary rivals mine. She uses words like “unfortunate” and “afforded” in the right context.

But she doesn’t always count to 20 perfectly. And counting beyond that is kind of a mess. Other kids in her class are counting to 100.

Her letters need some work, but I think she’s doing well.

I worry that if I make the wrong decision, Addie will struggle in school.

The Internet is full of articles about kindergarten readiness and forums where parents support both sides of “redshirting” or not.

My aunt held my cousin back and she ended up being the valedictorian of her high-school class. Impressive, but would she have had that title if she started on time?

All this worrying hasn’t really gotten me anywhere, so I turned to the U.S. Department of Education’s website.

In a survey, public school teachers ranked physical well-being, social development and curiosity as more important for kindergarten readiness than knowledge of skills.

Of the almost 1,500 teachers surveyed, more than half said it is not very important to know the alphabet or count in order to be ready for kindergarten.

Sounds good, but learning all seems to be moved up now. Many children learn to read in kindergarten, not first grade like I did. I notice one boy in my daughter’s class is doing math that seems to be on at least a first-grade level.

So what’s a parent to do? Are there any long-term effects of starting my early birthday kid in kindergarten on time? Is it better to be the oldest or the youngest in a grade?

According to Deborah Stipek, dean at the Stanford School of Education, I might be putting a little too much thought into this decision.

“It probably matters much less than parents believe. Most of the research suggests that any differences in achievement associated with age that are seen in the early grades disappear within a few years,” she said.

“‘Unless your child is very immature or is developing language unusually slowly or something like that, there is probably no harm in sending her on,” Stipek said.

OK. That makes me feel better.

Stipek added that what happens to children depends a lot of how good their teachers are at providing differentiated instruction that is appropriate for all of their students, regardless of skill levels and learning styles.

So for now I’m putting my worries aside, and next month, ready or not, it’s kindergarten here we come.

Source: The Canadian Press, LAS VEGAS
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIf7t7_qrjR_OkFxr7-qca7hZITg

With 85 percent of brain development occurring between the time of conception and age five, early influences - both good and bad- affect a child’s ability to learn and function in society, a panel of state leaders learned at a Harvard University seminar.

What happens to a woman during pregnancy and to a child in its earliest formative stages “actually reprints your DNA and changes the DNA,” said state Rep. Hollis Downs, R-Ruston, who assembled a team to attend the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child at Harvard University June 26-28.

Rep. Don Trahan, R-Lafayette, chairman of the House Education Committee, said the symposium confirmed his belief that “pre-natal to age five is the most important time in the development of child. Our duty now is to determine how to satisfy that need in Louisiana.”

“We actually have a road map,” Trahan said. “Zero to three in Head Start, LA4 for four-year-olds, five in kindergarten and by the first grade, everybody is on the same page, able to read.”

It will take a serious education effort to get parents to realize the importance of prenatal and early childhood factors that can make or break a child’s chances for success, said Linda Johnson, president of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, another member of the Louisiana team attending the conference.

Johnson said she will take the information to BESE and see what policies it can develop to improve the education climate.

Downs said scientists at the symposium showed evidence that numerous “stressors,” the most damaging of which is alcohol, can have long-lasting effects on brain development. Other factors include physical abuse, drugs, loud music, lack of nurturing, poverty and malnutrition.

Downs said alerting parents to these problems would improve their children’s school performance and “yield a 15-to-1 return on money spent.” He said the state for years has alerted mothers-to-be of the dangers of drinking and smoking while pregnant and “that was before we knew (other factors) had an impact on predisposition to heart disease and diabetes.”

Danny Bell, superintendent of schools in Lincoln Parish, said the stress factor “many times evolves into learning problems,” even autism. Also, “doing more from birth to the time a child enters school can have a significant impact on the success of a child.

“We learned from the science that stressors can have a lifelong impact that is almost impossible to reverse,” Bell said.

Janie Humphries, McGehee Professor of Early Childhood Development at Louisiana Tech University, said the group learned “Louisiana is doing things right.”

She said smaller class sizes, particularly in day care and pre-school, are important to development because children prosper from more personal attention.

“These are critical periods in a child’s growth” that “lay the foundation of higher thinking skills,” Humphries said.

Downs said having smaller classes is crucial because two-thirds of Louisiana’s pre-schoolers are in daycare. “Small is better and having a high ratio of adults to children is important.”

Trahan said the Legislature opened the door to universal access to the Cecil J. Picard LA4 Program but the state budget only covers at-risk children. Also, not every parish offers it. Parents of children who don’t qualify for state aid can still enroll their children in LA4 and pay on a sliding scale based on income.

Downs said the Louisiana team, which also consisted of Erin Bendily, education policy advisor to the governor, Senate Education Committee Chairman Ben Nevers, Joe Salter of the Department of Education, and Department of Social Services Secretary Ann Williamson, is planning a “mini-symposium” this fall to present the information to state policy makers. He said he expects legislation to be offered in the next session to address some of the issues that state government can influence.

Source: Opelousas Daily World, LA
http://www.dailyworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/NEWS01/807230304/1002

Society is bored with single-minded career women and, frankly, aren’t women sick too of the pressure to succeed like men?

Madonna’s alleged marital problems were always going to make the news, but not just because it’s Madonna. Her crisis on the home front — rumours of divorce, her brother Christopher Ciccone’s claims that her career will always win over her relationship — echoes a wider debate that is increasingly defining our generation of women: can you have a successful working life and maintain a happy family, or are you doomed to fail at one or the other? More important, how do you judge a woman’s success — by her job or by her achievements closer to home? Madonna was our role model. She sandwiched it all in — the work with the workouts with the children with the husband — and all without compromising her plan for world domination. And yet, her brother’s words are being chewed over because of the growing anxiety surrounding women’s role. The ideal is subtly changing, and the definition of what makes a woman successful is shifting before our eyes.

Look at the emphasis that there is on having children in Hollywood. Do you care about Jennifer Aniston’s career any more, or do you really only care about the absence of a man to give her a child? And what about Kylie? All that success — yet no man and no babies is the big story. How about Charlotte Church, the new poster girl for the stay-at-home wife: “I wait on him [Gavin] hand, foot and finger, and that’s the way I like it. His mother spoiled him and now I spoil him,” said the multimillionairess recently (in a separate interview, she was pictured ironing one of Gavin’s shirts just to drive home the point).

All around us we see women celebrated more for their traditionally feminine roles and lifestyles, or their marriages to rich men, than for their own achievements. Society is bored with “career women” and often view women with high-powered careers who spend little time at home with contempt. There is a feeling that work is now a woman’s right, sure, but to be wholly successful, she must excel as a mother and wife, too. So is this backsliding, or could it be the beginning of a new episode in feminism: “The one where women finally work out what they want and get the balance right, and stop feeling like they are selling everybody short”?

This issue of what women need to be happy has become a political hot potato in America, with the pro stay-at-home moms on one side and working moms on the other (a nasty slanging match that has been dubbed the Mommy Wars). Most recently in this magazine, the American feminist Katie Roiphe, who rejected the life of a stay-at-home mom, lamented the fact that we have not shrugged off the stereotype of the ideal mother, despite the efforts of her mother’s generation: “We remain enamoured of the traditional ideas of what a mother is. I still find myself getting up at 5am to make cupcakes for my daughter’s birthday . . . These old-fashioned ideas still have a huge hold over us.”

Others are not so convinced that domesticity is a trap, among them Fiona Neill, the British author of The Secret Life of a Slummy Mummy (a book that Roiphe, weirdly — given its title and comic content — accused of presenting a romanticised view of stay-at-home motherhood). “The truth is that domestic life is not necessarily unrewarding,” says Neill. “When we have children, we discover a softer side to ourselves, which a lot of feminists don’t want to admit even exists. I think that feminism gave us one angle — breaking through the glass ceiling and asking for an equal salary — but it didn’t give us all the answers.” And boy, do we need answers. As Neill says: “I don’t squabble with my friends over who is getting it right. But now we’ve got to the point where, however you do it, you lose. That’s how I feel.”

The Canadian psychologist Susan Pinker is at the forefront of the attempt to establish what women really want and how they can achieve the right balance. Her book The Sexual Paradox has caused controversy for suggesting that women are biologically programmed to operate differently from men. “My take on this is that the majority of women have multiple, more balanced goals. Not that long ago, being at the top of the managerial chain was the highest rung on the ladder for women. They were expected to want what men had always wanted, no matter what. Now, one generation after second-wave feminism, I think younger women are moving beyond that constricted view. More women want rewarding family lives and rewarding work lives.”

In other words, women thrive when they are allowed to be flexible and accommodate all of these roles, rather than conforming to the male model of what a successful life involves. Mary Portas, of Queen of Shops fame, an undeniably powerful and successful businesswoman, is passionate about a woman’s right — and need — to fulfil herself both at work and at home: “My idea of hell is the ballsy Apprentice kind of businesswoman, living life by some blokeish code. Women are aware that the nurturing part of their make-up is essential. I think that my greatest achievement is mothering my two children. If I boast about anything, it’s that I always leave work on time to pick up my kids, and I make a loving home for them. I think all women need that, and I don’t see any contradiction between that and having a successful career.”

The truth is that the alternative — subscribing to the rigid male model and somehow squeezing it all in — is not working for a lot of women. Sarah Jackson, chief executive of Working Families, a charity that offers support to parents and employers, says: “We put all the value on getting out there and working, but we are beginning to see that there is a contradiction in that. Now that men and women are both working, who does the caring?” She puts the timing of this mood shift down to “a cultural temperature change.

I think it is to do with all the debate around global warming and the idea that we should eat better and live better. It’s the quality of life stuff that we are struggling with. When the zeitgeist puts into sharper relief the areas that we are not doing well in, that’s when you notice it more. And that’s when you feel a sense of failure”.

Daisy Goodwin, author and founder of the production company Silver River, agrees that women are no longer prepared to deny what makes them tick. “I was shocked when the BBC ran that series, Delia’s How to Cheat at Cooking. Women have realised that they can’t cheat with their food, or their kids, or their work. And they don’t want to. We have moved on from the Shirley Conran, “life is too short to stuff a mushroom” school of thought. Most women want to work and stuff a mushroom. I make jam. I knit. I think you get enormous pleasure from doing daily manual tasks.”

She believes working women can easily find the balance between being homemakers and mothers and excelling at their jobs. The only thing standing in their way is perception, notably the bad press given to working mothers and the male-centric way in which most work organisations are run. That’s where the guilt and the stress come in. “Women tend not to rise to the top of big corporations because there isn’t the option to run things their way. They leave to set up their own companies because they realise their values and skills aren’t really recognised.” Jackson agrees that, increasingly, women are gravitating towards workplaces that enable them to be employees and carers: “Businesses have started to take this seriously because talent is walking out of the door, simply because they haven’t adjusted the way things are organised.”

Meanwhile, the prevailing ethos is that whatever it takes, you work, and work comes first. “When we wrote the first editorial for Spare Rib, we said liberation was about choice,” says the journalist and author Rosie Boycott. “What is wrong with the society we live in is that success is all about money. We see people who aren’t working flat out as failures. We have to shift away from that viewpoint, not just for the sake of women — so that mothering is valued — but also for the sake of the planet. I was lucky because I had a nanny at home, but I see young women, stressed beyond belief, who get called into meetings called at 6.15pm when their bosses know they have to go home. That kind of attitude deeply devalues motherhood.”

If and when we have sorted out the practicalities of work, the next challenge is to let go of the idea of being perfect or of recapturing some lost golden era of domestic bliss. “We have raised the bar really high,” says Goodwin. “We have to have the big job, the beautiful house, the perfect kids and stuff the mushrooms. We are hugely self-critical and perfectionist.”

Besides, the idea that women are not attaining the same standards of caring as previous generations is largely a myth. “If you look at the amount of time women spent with their kids in the 1960s, it was certainly no more than they spend now, because then they were doing so many hours of domestic chores,” says Jackson. “There is this invented past. Women have been liberated from domestic chores. The challenge now is to let go.”

But there are new reasons to beat ourselves up, too. Neill says: “It’s not about women wanting to chain themselves to the sink again, it’s to do with trying to reassure and comfort ourselves in a world that feels out of control. All those domesticated things we are drawn to do are psychologically comforting.” She also makes the point that a lot of mothers’ guilt is related to the way that psychotherapy has infiltrated everyone’s lives. “Mothers used to be responsible for their children’s basic wellbeing, seeing that they were fed and clothed. Now they are responsible for their psychological and emotional wellbeing, and if anything goes wrong, it is laid at their door. My mother didn’t worry about our diet, paedophiles, education, getting a good GP. Now it feels like we aren’t getting the support, and we are responsible for so much more. It’s really hard not to feel like you are failing on some level.”

If there is a solution, it is that we have to stop seeing things in black and white. “There is no perfect formula for happiness for women, just as there is no Santa Claus,” says Pinker. “Expecting that there should be one route to fulfilment explains the continuing vituperation of the Mommy Wars. And indeed, a woman’s priorities may shift over time.” Since almost all of us live in dual-income households, it is likely to be tough, however you play it, and the best place to start is by accepting that doing the best you can is good enough.

“The middle of the road is an unfashionable place to be, but it might be the right place to be,” says Neill. “There is a lot to be saidfor being just good enough at everything, because that’s the only way you are ever going to be happy.”

Source: Times Online, UK
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4343969.ece

It’s not a matter of race or class. Our economic structure is to blame for the lack of real fathers

Fatherhood is back in the political ring. In the right corner, David Cameron’s comments about black fathers revive the Conservative instinct for a scapegoat. In the left corner, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s Working Better initiative has joined with Mumsnet.com and Dad Info to launch ‘Home Front: What do mums and dads need to make life work?’ For the right, paternal responsibility is the bedrock of patriarchal social order. For the left, paternal responsibility is about a new kind of democratic settlement between men and women.

Fatherhood today is measured against the model of the man as family provider, the breadwinner supporting wife and children. This is a modern invention of the middle classes and only became the norm in the 1950s. In the past paternity was never enough to qualify men for fatherhood. Patriarchy was limited to propertied men. Colonialism ensured it was further restricted to white men.

There were plenty of biological fathers who lived without families. This was not about men’s moral failings, but a structural problem. Since the 1950s historic changes in the economy and in gender relations have returned us to this age. Paternity no longer means fatherhood.

In the 1980s, mass unemployment and the closure of manufacturing industries destroyed many men’s role as family breadwinner. Capitalism restructured around a low-wage, flexible labour market. Men’s ‘family wage’ and job for life disappeared and large numbers of women were drawn into the workforce. As men’s incomes stagnated or fell, women took on a double shift of paid work and unpaid domestic labour. Working class survival and middle class lifestyle once managed on a man’s single income now require two incomes, and often multiple part-time jobs. The role of family breadwinner is now unattainable for the majority of fathers in Britain.

For many young working-class people, marriage and setting up a family home has become a distant dream. Low wages and a lack of affordable housing makes it increasingly difficult for many young men to create an independent life of their own. The traditional rites of passage into adulthood – leaving home, entering employment, establishing a family, and taking on legal obligations and rights – have disappeared.

Research by the centre right think tank Civitas suggests that the higher rates of single parenthood and cohabitation in low income areas are not about feckless fathers or an anti-marraige trend but to do with the structural problems of poverty and a low wage economy.

Debates about fatherhood in recent years have all failed to recognise the structural changes within which men and women are forced to make choices and take decisions. Politicians of all parties go along with tabloid explanations of ‘deadbeat dads’. The Right wants to rewind 200 years and reimpose the patriarchal roles of mothers and fathers. Labour, despite the best efforts of feminism, is silent and evasive about both masculinity and fatherhood.

The growing popularity of Cameron’s Conservatives has emboldened them to revive the old right wing ‘responsibility agenda’. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Minister for Work and Pensions has made a number of eloquent speeches on the subject: “We have a growing generation of young men, alienated and drifting without a purpose in life; They are causing trouble; Welfare programmes don’t work and the criminal justice system is too soft; Many have grown up without fathers and many are becoming ‘fathers in name but not in action’; The lack of fathers is a huge problem for all of us.”

Grayling is good at describing the problem, but pointing the finger of blame at individual behaviour does not confront the bigger problem. He has no solutions. Nor, for that matter, does Labour. The fact is that the kind of democratic fatherhood society aspires to is not compatible with our economic and class system which leaves men with either too little or too much work. Only one in five men takes advantage of the new paternity leave provision of two weeks off, paid at £117 a week. Because of financial pressures 40 per cent don’t take up the right. As the EHRC’s NIcola Brewer has argued, “The central issue is that the economic penalty for fatherhood is too high.”

Source: guardian.co.uk, UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/19/race

From the moment a child is born, he or she begins developing cognitive skills.

According to the Bush Administration’s Early Child-hood Initiative, found at www.whitehouse.gov, developmental scientists have found that the brain obtains a great amount of information in the first year of life. Long before babies can talk, they are learning about language.

“By the time babies utter or understand their first words, they know which particular sounds their language uses; what sounds can be combined to create words; and the tempo and rhythm of words and phrases,” the Bush Administration said.

The opportunity of success later in a child’s life is greatly enhanced by the development a child undergoes early in life, according to the Bush Administration.

“For example, infants who are better at distinguishing the building blocks of speech at six months are better at other more complex language skills at two and three-years-of-age and better at acquiring the skills for learning to read at four and five-years-of-age,” the Bush Administration said.

“When young children are provided an environment rich in language and literacy interactions and full of opportunities to listen to and use language constantly, they can begin to acquire the essential building blocks for learning how to read. A child who enters school without these skills runs a significant risk of starting behind and staying behind,” the Bush Administration said.

Parent’s are a child’s first and most important teachers, according to the Bush Administration. For this reason, the Bush Administration said it is important for parents to be provided with support in educating their children.

The USD 234 school district and the USD 235 school district in partnership with the Southeast Kansas Education Service Center, Greenbush has been offering support to some parents by providing a 4-year-old preschool program. The free program, which is funded by grants through the Kansas Department of Education, provides 4-year-olds opportunities and experiences that will prepare them for school success. In addition, it develops their social-emotional, physical, cognitive and language skills.

The 4-year-old preschool program is designed especially to meet the needs of children who are economically or environmentally disadvantaged, according to www.greenbush.com.

According to Greenbush. Early Childhood Director Cassandra Elsworth, the preschool program operates the same schedule as the regular school schedules. The preschool sessions are half-day sessions, Elsworth said. Most classes contain about 14 students.

The preschool program offers much needed support to parents and children by preparing children for kindergarten, Elsworth said.

“This free preschool will provide fun-filled, hands on opportunities and experiences to enhance a child’s cognitive, language, social, emotional and physical development in preparation for kindergarten,” a press release from Elsworth said.

According to the Bush Administration programs like the 4-year-old preschool are essential in the effort to improve early childhood learning.

“Efforts to improve early childhood learning will not work unless they involve States and school districts, which shoulder the primary responsibility for providing public education,” the Bush Administration said.

“Since States and districts are directly responsible for student learning and achievement in school, preparing children to learn before they start school is in their best interest.

“This is particularly true now that the No Child Left Behind law requires standards and accountability for every school in America. Many States and districts have already taken concrete steps in recognition that, in order for students to succeed once they reach school, they must come prepared to learn.”

Source: Fort Scott Tribune, KS
http://www.fstribune.com/story/1446042.html

Choosing your new baby’s name is a task fraught with tension for most expectant parents. Will the name be too common in popularity, or too rare? Will it tie negative associations to the child? (There’s a reason the name “Adolph” has fallen out of favor the last half-century.) Will the name grow with the child, or sound frivolous during adulthood?

Jennifer Moss, a Los Angeles-based baby-name consultant who advises new parents on naming their children through her website BabyNames.com and by a personalized naming service, offers these tips in her new book, The One-in-a- Million Baby Name Book, in bookstores this month.

Moss, who is a baby-name consultant and founder of BabyNames.com, offers the following guidelines for expectant parents in choosing their own child’s one-in-a-million name:

1. Family histories and traditions: Does the name mean something special to you and/or your family members? Have you considered family names for first and middle names?

2. Spelling and ease of use: Is this name easy to spell? Is it easy to pronounce? A girl named Melyssah will be destined to spend a lot of time spelling out her name the rest of her life.

3. Popularity and saturation: Are you choosing a truly unique name or simply following the trends? Where is the name ranked on popularity lists like the one on BabyNames.com or the U.S. Social Security Administration’s baby names database? Take into consideration that names that are popular today may seem dated 30 years from now, just as the name “Nancy” harkens to the 1950s and “Tiffany” summons images of the 1980s pop singer and her peers.

4. Jokes, puns, and teasing potential: Will your child be teased because of the name, or due to his or her initials? Is it funny to you? Does the name rhyme with something teasable? “Crystal Chandel Lear” belongs above the dining room table, not on a birth certificate.

5. Pronunciation, rhythm and flow: How does the first name sound when combined with your last name? Is it too choppy, or too long? Names have a natural sound and rhythm - a way that people hear the syllables in natural musical beats. Show friends and family the written name and ask them to pronounce it for you; if it doesn’t sound right, or they mispronounce the name, you may want to reconsider.

6. Gender identification: Is the name too frilly? Is it a primarily male or female name? Remember that male-identified names often work for baby girls, but female-identified names can be awkward for baby boys.

7. The introduction test: Introduce yourself out loud using the planned first name and last name together. Does it sound “right” to you? Sometimes a name will look good on paper, but just doesn’t sound right when written.

“The One-in-a-Million Baby Name” book includes chapters dedicated to traditional names, celebrity names, names of royalty through the ages, character names found in popular culture, nature names, and names from the world of sports, along with firsthand stories from parents on how they chose their children’s names. It also includes thousands of name suggestions, along with their meanings, origins and ratings of the names from visitors to BabyNames.com.

BabyNames.com, which debuted on the Web in 1996, is one of the top destinations for expectant parents. In addition to its naming service and comprehensive names database, BabyNames.com offers parenting advice, parenting and naming forums, and celebrity-baby news, among other features. The site is owned and operated by Moss, her sisters Mallory Rustin, Kate Glinsmann and Sue Moss, and their mother, Peg Moss.

Source: PR Newswire, NY
http://tinyurl.com/5hhnso