A visiting international childhood expert says children should watch no television in the first two years of their lives.

The director of the Centre on Media and Child Health at the Harvard Medical School, Dr Michael Rich, says there is little benefit in putting a child under the age of two in front of a TV screen.

“There is no scientific evidence that children under the age of about 30 months, two-and-a-half years, can learn much of anything other than fairly rote imitation or mimicry from an electronic screen,” he told ABC radio’s The World Today program.

“What we know is that at least for national data from the United States that children under the age of two on average use electronic games for about an hour, a little over an hour a day,” he said.

“[We know] that 26 per cent of them have a television in their bedrooms and that it is very much integrated into their daily lives, largely in the format of parents using the television as an electronic babysitter.”

Dr Rich says TV screens do not provide the kind of stimuli most optimal for brain development.

“The best things are interaction with other human beings face to face, manipulating the physical environment, stacking up blocks, trying to get a raisin in your mouth and open-ended creative problem-solving sort of play,” he said.

“So a blank piece of paper and a crayon or a piece of clay to play with.”

Dr Rich says television and other media consumption should be restricted to about two hours a day for teenagers.

“It is really the school age years where kids start watching television on their own and actually teenagers, the data shows, use television less than school age kids,” he said.

“They start using more music and online media rather than television.

“But frankly there is no reason why young people, who have otherwise rich lives and homework to do and sleep to get, need to get more than an hour or two at most of media time each day.”

Source: ABC Online, Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/06/2412591.htm

Many parents don’t realize how easy and fun it can be to bring the family closer together while improving their children’s literacy skills.

“Spending time together and learning as a family can be a simple, inexpensive and easy activity. It just requires a little time, imagination and creativity,” said Sharon Darling, president and founder of the National Center for Family Literacy.

With this in mind, the center is offering some helpful tips for families to teach their children by using the world around them and maximizing time spent together:

1. Make science come alive at home by checking out science experiment books from the library and then trying simple experiments at home. For example, grow a vegetable with your child, chart the growth and talk about it.

2. Tie reading into an outing. If you’re going to a museum, bring home a book about dinosaurs, so they see reading as an experience.

3. Increase oral language skills by sharing stories of your childhood, suggest the experts at the center. You also can share stories about your child’s life, such as when they were born, their first Christmas, etc.

4. Use certain reading techniques that have been proven to increase effectiveness in reading time, including making sound effects to capture kids’ attention and changing your voice when different characters speak. You also should talk about the story to reinforce comprehension and memory skills, and read it again because repetition helps children recognize and remember words.

5. Teach math skills by letting your child count the money to pay at the store.

You will quickly be able to see the rewards of these activities, first-hand.

“As the father of three fantastic children, I so clearly and vividly recall many moments curled up with my children reading to them, at all times of day and night; on the kitchen floor, in their forts, on old sofas and beat up bean bags, in bed and in the car,” said David Murphy, president and CEO of Better World Books.

“Few moments in life can compare to the wonders of opening up the new world of language and communication, and wonder and awe to your child.”

Children also need good role models when it comes to literacy. According to the center, if kids don’t see parents reading for pleasure and for purpose, then they are less likely to view reading as a pleasurable experience.

For more recommendations from the center on literacy activities, visit www.famlit.org.

Source: Elmira Star-Gazette, NY
http://www.stargazette.com/article/20081105/LIFE06/811050304

Parents who want their preschoolers to eat their vegetables may need to take a hard look at their own eating habits, new research suggests.

The findings, reported in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, suggest that even very young children do not indiscriminately reach for candy when given the chance. Instead, they seem to already be forming food preferences — potentially lasting ones — based on their parents’ shopping carts.

“The data suggest that children begin to assimilate and mimic their parents’ food choices at a very young age, even before they are able to fully appreciate the implications of these choices,” write the researchers, led by Dr. Lisa A. Sutherland of Dartmouth Medical School in Lebanon, New Hampshire.

That, the researchers say, means that the grocery store can be like a classroom, where parents teach their children that foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains take priority over snacks and desserts.

For the study, Sutherland’s team had 120 children aged 2 to 6 years old each take a turn in a play grocery store. The children were told they could buy anything they wanted out of 133 items: “healthier” foods included fruits, vegetables, whole-grain cereals, bread and milk; “less healthy” items included desserts, candy, potato chips, soda and sugary cereals.

Parents completed questionnaires on how often they bought specific foods and beverages. All said they brought their children with them on grocery store trips.

Most of the children, the researchers found, bought some sugary, salty treats; on average, their carts were filled with equal parts healthy and unhealthy items.

Giving preschoolers a taste for healthy foods, the researchers add, could ultimately make it easier for them to keep up a lifetime of smart eating.

Source: Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE4A26J920081103

Parents, you can keep those flash cards and alphabet books.

But there’s another device in your home that can help develop language and visual skills. It’s called - hold on to your remotes - the television set.

Instead of being simply society’s whipping boy and the root of all cultural evil, the so-called “idiot box” might actually boost test scores, especially in disadvantaged homes, a recently published study out of the University of Chicago says.

Even as it baby-sits electronically, the TV can be teaching both modes of learning and facts, other studies suggest, and keeping those who watch it from engaging in more destructive behaviors.

That’s the good news about the boob tube. There’s certainly bad, including the warning that “there’s no two-dimensional screen that can equal a three-dimensional caregiver,” says Dr. Donald Shifrin, the American Academy of Pediatrics spokesman on the impact of media on children. Then there’s the study showing kids who watch more TV do less reading.

But we’ll get to the numerous caveats - especially the one about “Desperate Housewives” being less helpful than “Sesame Street” - later.

For now, let’s deal with what many may find surprising.

The prevailing, almost unquestioning cultural bias against TV, especially among the upper-middle class, is nailed by the humor blog Stuff White People Like, which puts “Not having a TV” at No. 28 on the list.

“The number one reason why white people like not having a TV is so that they can tell you that they don’t have a TV,” the authors write. But there is an academic consensus, if not a popular-culture one, that TV may actually be useful as more than just a means for frazzled parents to buy a few moments of uninterrupted time or wind down mindlessly at day’s end.

“I used to laugh and say, ’I did 25 years of research on children in television, and I can summarize it in one sentence: It’s the content that matters,’” says Aletha Huston, a professor of child development at the University of Texas.

“If used correctly, television can be a wonderful medium for kids. It can be a way of exposing them to the world. It can be a resource for kids to get to places and times they wouldn’t get to,” says Huston.

Yet, “it is a message that doesn’t get out there somehow,” she says, citing the surprisingly intense interest when “we published a study a few years ago showing the positive effects of ’Sesame Street’ on early schoolkids’ performance.”

The Chicago study came out of the Graduate School of Business, where young economists have been looking at media and its effects. Although based on an old data set, it offers new confirmation of the evolving views of television.

Standardized testing of almost 350,000 6th, 9th and 12th-grade students showed that the students who had more exposure to television in early childhood did slightly better on the tests than those with less exposure.

“We find strong evidence against the view that childhood television viewing harms the cognitive or educational development of preschoolers,” write Jesse Shapiro and Matthew Gentzkow in the paper, published this year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

There’s a big caveat: The testing data are from 1965, because those kids had been around when television rolled out from city to city in the U.S., providing what essentially hasn’t been seen in the United States since, a large-scale, clear-cut, before-and-after comparison.

“It’s an open question how the ways in which television is different now than then would affect the data,” says Shapiro, an assistant professor of economics at the GSB.

But even with more recent data, another U. of C. economist reached a similar conclusion to that of Shapiro and Gentzkow.

“Despite the conventional wisdom, watching television apparently does not turn a child’s brain to mush,” wrote Steven Levitt, with co-author Stephen Dubner, in the 2005 hit book Freakonomics.

They looked at a huge early-childhood study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education in the 1990s and found “no correlation,” they wrote, “between a child’s test scores and the amount of television he watches.”

One of the big questions for economists is not just examining an activity in isolation but considering what activity it replaces.

Psychological research shows that violence in media increases aggression, for example. But “violent crime decreases on days with larger theater audiences for violent movies,” another recent study of media effects found. The implication: However aggressive you may feel, you can’t do the crime if you don’t have the time.

Violent movies aren’t the same as children’s afternoon television shows. But Shapiro and Gentzkow also found that much of the impact of the medium they were studying seemed to be related to what activities it might be replacing.

In their findings, even after controlling for parental income and education levels, TV’s “effects are more positive for children from less advantaged families or from families where English isn’t the first language,” Shapiro says.

Put another way, that translates into a whopper of a caveat: “For children with highly educated parents and rich home environments, the cognitive effects of television appear to be smaller and may even be negative,” they write.

In other words: TV as a surrogate parent is not equal to Scrabble with an English-lit-major mom.

The common wisdom is that TV has been in decline for decades, but many critics share the view of another popular book, Everything Bad Is Good for You. In it, author Steven Berlin Johnson contends that TV now is actually much better, “more complex and nuanced,” than it was at the time of Shapiro’s study.

“The most debased forms of mass diversion - video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms - turn out to be nutritional after all,” Johnson writes, largely because the storytelling and complexity of action demands much more of the viewer.

He’s looking at adult TV, comparing the intricate “The Sopranos” to the simple “Starsky & Hutch,” for instance, but the argument can also be made for children’s television, where the straight-ahead action-hero cartoon story has been replaced by the subtle social interactions and multiple layers of meaning in “SpongeBob SquarePants.”

Patricia Greenfield has looked at more contemporary data, too, and concluded television is a mixed educational blessing. It’s likely responsible for a rise in verbal IQ scores, while it may be to blame for declines in verbal SAT scores.

“The real strength of television in teaching vocabulary is the visual context for teaching definitions,” says Greenfield, director of the Children’s Digital Media Center at UCLA and California State University at Los Angeles. That applies to IQ tests, which use “everyday vocabulary,” she says. Meanwhile, SATs look for “Latin-based, literary vocabulary,” which TV, by and large, does not offer.

Her 1998 paper, “The Cultural Evolution of IQ,” also makes the case for television’s helping to teach “visual intelligence,” the reading of signs, symbols, images so vital in today’s culture.

With television and DVDs being used widely in schools and by parents, her reading is that anti-TV forces may actually be “in decline,” to the point that “I’m a little bit more concerned about people not understanding the costs, only looking at the benefits.”

That’s certainly a worry of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommends no screen time for children under age 2 and a maximum of two well-chosen hours per day for older kids.

The concern is not TV per se so much as what TV, especially relevant with one study showing nearly 40 percent of children age 6 and younger have TVs in their bedrooms.

“Are we viewing ’Elimidate’?” the academy’s Shifrin asks. “Or are we viewing ’Dora the Explorer’?”

The doctors group understands that youngsters are growing up “as digital natives,” he adds. “We want parents to understand it’s up to them to be literate enough to know what’s being taught” on the screens.

He recommends the Web site Common Sense Media (commonsensemedia.org) as a good way for parents to achieve such literacy.

“We are not going to censor television - we’d like to censure it at times - but what we are going to say is, ’Caveat emptor,’” Shifrin says. “It’s about what you watch, how much you watch and where it’s watched.”

—

HOW TO USE IT

1. Don’t be passive. The stereotype is of the viewer numbly flipping through channels, looking for anything of interest. Instead, seek out what you have good reason to believe will be good or interesting and watch then or set your DVR or VCR to record it. You don’t read books or go to films at random, do you? One quick way to find out what the critical consensus is: the Web site Meta critic.com, which sums up what major critics say about a show then provides an average rating. For kids’ TV, try common sensemedia.org.

2. Ignore TV series in their first run. If you don’t need to be part of water-cooler chatter the next morning, the much more efficient, educated way is to get a well-reviewed series from Netflix or your library after it has come out on DVD. Watch at your pace, without commercials.

3. “Documentary” does not equal “medicine.” Many of us have some brain filter that counts nonfiction as castor oil, even when another part of our brain knows better. To take docs out of the equation - the great work of PBS’ “Frontline,” for instance - is to miss some of television’s best work.

4. Take the TV out of the bedrooms. We’ve all got great kids with great judgment, but they are curious creatures, and left alone with the box, they’ll seek out its most shocking fare - not to mention get one more reason to procrastinate. Take temptation off the dresser.

5. If they must have TVs, use filters. All those ratings that were put in place do actually work. Spend 10 minutes with your TV’s manual (”Ratings”), and you’ll be able to limit the viewing possibilities to appropriate levels, plus be able to set a password strong enough to keep your settings from being overridden by the electronic-media genius you’re raising. (…)

Source: Boston Herald, United States
http://tinyurl.com/5l7cb5

You can help your child develop skills for reading and writing while doing ordinary chores around the house! Supporting your child’s literacy development is one of the most important tasks you have, and it can be done even when you are busy (and isn’t that most of the time?).

Following are some simple ideas that will help you make the most of every opportunity you have with your preschool child:

- As you put away the groceries, ask your child to name the items in the boxes. He may not be able to read the words on the label yet, but he will begin to recognize logos and pictures, which he will later associate with the printed word.

- While you dust the furniture, let your child write his name in the furniture polish.

- Give your child simple jobs to do as you cook; measuring ingredients or rolling dough are examples. Talk about the words in the recipe you are using; explain terms like mix, stir, or sift. This is a great time to also talk about cleanliness and the importance of “clean cooking hands.”

- When making biscuits, give your child a portion of the dough. He can shape the dough into letters and bake his name. What a fun way to learn to spell! You can also use leftover dough and add a little food coloring - instant play-dough (keeps in refrigerator a few days with kneading).

- Let your child place magnetic letters on the refrigerator while you cook. Talk about the letters and sounds he is using.

- Even bath time can be a learning experience! Let your child lather up the side of the tub with soap. Encourage him to write his name or draw pictures in the lather.

- Make a book with your child. Let him draw pictures and scribble (a toddler’s version of writing) a story. Place the pages in plastic storage bags and staple together like a book or punch holes in the sides and tie pages together with yarn.

- Let your child help sort the laundry by color. Talk about the colors. You can also sort into items (linens, clothes, etc.) and in sizes (large, small, medium) to nurture those all-important pre-math skills.

- Look for restaurant signs, toy store signs, etc., as you travel. Most children recognize their favorite fast food place simply by its outdoor sign! This is a child’s first reading experience (recognizing familiar signs and symbols). We call this “environmental literacy.”

Remember, you as a parent are your child’s first and most important teacher! Think about the simple ways you can support your child’s literacy development as you go about your daily activities! In doing so, you are nurturing your child’s natural curiosity and promoting a life-long love of learning. Happy Parenting! (…)

Source: Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, MS
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=281094&pub=1&div=News

Dear Dr. Fournier: I just came from a school council meeting where parents were furious because of low achievement test scores. These are the same people that put stickers on their cars saying their child is an A student. How can you love your child’s school one day and hate it the next? When they give our children good grades, they’re great, but when they flunk standardized tests, our schools are bad?

Grades and achievement tests are both important. A law school student might have graduated with top honors and even been the editor of his school’s law review but will not be able to practice law until he passes the state bar exam. The challenge lies in the fact that children must do well from day to day in the classroom yet they must be able to pass tests made by others from outside your child’s school in order to be deemed a success.

Neither of these accomplishments guarantees your child success as an adult because school systems and standardized test makers are operating on the 1940s structure of education in this country, which was designed for the industrial era.

Your children must learn skills that are not being taught in schools.

WHAT TO DO

Harper’s magazine reports in the article “Figuratively Speaking” by John MacIntyre that 77 percent of parents of school-aged youth say they are satisfied with their children’s education. If this many people are happy, why do politicians and international studies indicate that our schools are so far below world standards? Obviously not everyone is happy. The same report says that the number decreases when adults in this country are asked the same question.

Only 44 percent of this group is all right with primary and secondary education. That means 56 percent does not believe our school systems are producing well-educated young adults. Of course these are many of the people that are supposed to employ our kids when they are older, so we have to admit that their opinion counts.

Strong American Schools chaired by former Colorado Governor Roy Romer found in 2004 that 33 percent of this country’s high school graduates needed remedial courses in college. Even though they had the grades to get into college and may have passed the SAT or ACT, they did not have the elementary/high school skills to do college work!

Furthermore, 29 percent of all students in four-year colleges and 43 percent of those in junior colleges needed remedial courses. Every one of those remedial students took courses in high school, passed those courses but learned close to nothing.

Taxpayers are paying billions a year to educate our children while college tuitions are increasing in part because colleges have to provide reeducation services — that is they have to teach high school (and sometimes elementary school) all over again.

The bottom line is that schools in our country are so busy teaching and trying to prove that they have taught by raising achievement scores that no one is watching the store. Schools are for children to learn.

Do not let your child go to bed celebrating an A unless he can prove to you that they still know what was on that test one month after they received the grade.

The system is fighting the wrong battle and losing the war.

Focus your energy on making sure your child has learned and let the bureaucrats and “happy with their school” parents knock themselves out losing the war and their children’s future, as well. (…)

Source: Henderson Gleaner, KY
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/oct/28/parents-should-focus-on-learning-more-than-on/

Many parents cringe at the thought of discipline. They also seem reluctant to have high expectations of their kids, or to hold them accountable for their performance. They do not want to “hurt” or “pressure” their children.

A harried mother approached me after my talk in an exclusive private school. “My son is at his computer till two in the morning,” she said. “He says he has to do a lot of research.” Her son is in first year high school, and has low grades.

“I do a lot of research,” I replied, “but I do not stay at the computer for more than a couple of hours every day. Your son is more likely playing games instead of doing his homework.”

She sighed. “I think so, too. My husband and I actually told him we would ban the computer, but he got mad at us. So we lifted the ban. What do we do now?”

I stifled a sigh. “You need to set limits,” I said. “An outright ban is difficult, because he needs to use the computer for tasks like word processing. But make sure he does not use the computer for more than two hours a day.”

“But he will get very angry!” she said. “He will tell us that he hates us!”

I looked her in the eye. Our children often say things they do not really mean. Your son will at first hate the fact that you are curtailing his leisure, but when his grades improve, he will be thankful, and so will you. Learn to say no—gently but firmly. Set limits because you care for him. He is your son, after all.”

Permissive parenting

In the incisive book Think, award-winning writer Michael LeGault discusses the lost art of sharp and critical thinking in American life. Permissive parenting is one trend; others are pervasive commercialism, anti-intellectualism, and promoting image without substance.

Without clear thinking and the willingness to persevere, LeGault says bad scenarios may repeat themselves such as the United States government’s failure to respond after Hurricane Katrina, the declining quality of US businesses, and the dismal scores of students in international tests.

I believe permissive parenting is one of the causes of educational problems not only in the US, but in our society as well. LeGault cites statistics showing that teenage boys play video games for 13 hours a week and watch television for another 25 hours. Many American parents are aware of this, but do not know what to do. In a 2001 Time magazine/CNN poll, 80 percent of Americans said, compared to kids of 15 years ago, their children were more spoiled; 35 percent said they were more permissive with their kids; 75 percent said children had fewer chores; 48 percent said children had too much influence in family decisions.

I am not saying that kids should have no say at all in the family, but when they stay up till the wee hours to play games, then something is wrong. When boundaries are not set, things go haywire.

In the past five years, I found myself becoming not just a teacher, but a de facto parent to several students, who suffered from depression, insomnia, anxiety; who slept no more than three hours a night, who did not eat well, who had sex without lasting relationships, who were angry at their parents and/or the world.

I ask them about their parents’ role. “Do your parents know you have not been sleeping well?” A shrug. “Do they know you are having sex?” A shake of the head.

Set limits

“Children not only need standards and rules for healthy social, ethical, and intellectual development,” says LeGault, “they desire them. [Standards lead to] good work and study habits, nurturing an outlook that aspires toward excellence, and acquiring a wide, eclectic base of knowledge … I think it’s a very valuable, realistic lesson to teach your kids at a young age that nothing is easy or automatic (even though it looks like it is), and that to be good at even one thing is going to take them way more work and struggle than they ever imagined.”

What happens when parents set limits? “Kids may sulk and be visibly unhappy,” LeGault says. “Parents can feel their pain but know it’s not going to kill them.” I repeat—it is not going to kill them.

LeGault says authoritative parents may appear “stodgy and uptight,” but they can take comfort in the fact that they are doing the right thing.

“The fear of growing up, or fear or loss of a child’s love and respect, or maybe just the path of least resistance, has led many parents to choose to be their child’s friend rather than their guide and mentor,” LeGault says. “Such an approach focuses on providing kids with material pleasures and comforts rather than demanding that they meet high expectations and do the work required to do so. The net result is a generation of adults who have transformed the traditional meaning of the child-parent relationship by adopting the most lax and permissive parenting practices in history.”

Thankfully, many parents have seen the light. Actor and comedian Bill Cosby urged his fellow African-Americans to become better parents in a 2004 speech: “I am talking about these people who cry when they see their son [in jail]. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn’t know that he had a pistol? The church is only open on Sunday and you can’t keep asking Jesus to do things for you. You can’t keep saying that God will find a way … People with their hats on backwards, pants down around their crack, isn’t that a sign of something or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up?”

LeGault gives parents a rallying cry: “Dare to try to let your kids fail. Dare to say no. Dare to use punishment when your child misbehaves. Dare to turn off the television. Dare to make them do chores. Dare to kick them off the computer. Dare to turn their world upside down. Dare to set the agenda.” (…)

Source: Inquirer.net, Philippines
http://tinyurl.com/5sqehj

‘Sex education’ is a much misinterpreted phrase. The idea is not to make children more proficient at sex, the way maths education should make them better at doing sums.

That is why, when Schools Minister Jim Knight launched a review of the subject last week, he referred carefully to ‘relationship education’. The government intends some kind of tuition in ‘personal and social health’ to become compulsory in English schools, taught from the age of five. It is already a mandatory part of the curriculum in Wales and Northern Ireland.

What the precise content of those lessons will be and what right parents will have to exclude their children from them are still open to discussion. But whatever language the government prefers to use, that discussion will really be about sex.

Children already learn the facts of procreation. What worries the government is that, outside the classroom, sex is increasingly seen as a normal form of recreation. Britain has the highest level of teenage pregnancy in Europe. It also suffers from high levels of sexually transmitted infection. According to the Health Protection Agency, people aged 16-24 accounted for half of all diagnosed cases of genital warts and gonorrhoea last year and nearly two-thirds of chlamydia cases.

A poll in today’s Observer reveals one in three has had sex before the age of consent.

According to moral conservatives, this is all symptomatic of a culture of sexual licence that rejects self-restraint and abstinence. By extension, they argue, teaching children about contraception in school legitimises promiscuity and undermines parents who want to impart more traditional values to their children.

There are three problems with that argument. First, the actual content of sex education classes is not licentious. They aim to empower children to resist social pressure to have sex and to understand the risks involved. Second, advocating abstinence is fine, but teenagers still have to understand what it is they are abstaining from. Upholding ‘traditional values’ often means treating sex as taboo altogether. Third, even if it is desirable for parents to teach a responsible approach to sex, many are clearly failing to do so.

It is true that British attitudes to sex are generally permissive, as The Observer poll also shows. There is nothing wrong with that. It is certainly better than a culture of sexual repression. The important thing is not to deny that sex happens, but to teach about all the consequences. It is ignorance, not education, that puts young people at risk.

Source: Guardian Unlimited, UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/26/sex-education-relationships

Children who eat breakfast each day are half as likely to be obese as those who skip it, new research shows.

They eat less for lunch and tend not to snack between meals, experts say.

The study looked at 15,000 five year olds born in the first two years of the millennium who were weighed and measured.

It found children who were obese were about twice as likely not to eat breakfast as children of normal weight.

Researchers also found those with unemployed parents were almost three times as likely to go without breakfast as those whose mothers and fathers were both working.

The study found about one in five of the children was either overweight or obese when they started school. More than 17 per cent of girls and 13.5 per cent of boys were overweight and a further 6 per cent of girls and 5 per cent of boys were obese.

“It is also likely, of course, that parents who fail to give their children breakfast may be less organised about nutrition in general.”

But Prof Joshi, of the Institute of Education at the University of London, added that economic pressures, such as the inability to afford healthy food, do not appear to be key contributors to weight gain.

She said: “Poor children in our study were no more likely to be overweight and only very slightly more likely to be obese.”

Eating regular meals, other than breakfast, also appeared to have no influence on whether a child would be overweight or obese.

But the researchers did find an association between mothers’ education level and children’s weight. Just three per cent of the children of graduate mothers were obese, compared with eight per cent of youngsters whose mothers had no qualifications.

Dr Colin Waine, immediate past chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said: “”This confirms what we have suspected for some time that breakfast is a good way to start the day for all children and is associated with reduced obesity levels and also better performance at school.”

Source: Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/69zkck

Poor parenting is to blame for a major deterioration in the behaviour of primary school pupils over the past five years, a study suggests today.

Many pupils lacked the social skills required to get on in class, said the researchers, commissioned the National Union of Teachers. “Teachers describe ‘highly permissive’ parents who admitted to indulging their children, often for the sake of peace or simply because they had run out of alternative incentives and sanctions,” the authors added.

Examples included a mother who, after great effort, succeeded in getting her five-year-old to bed at 1am instead of 3am, and a boy of seven who smashed his Sony PlayStation in a tantrum, then would not behave for a week until his mother bought him a new one.

Professors Galton and Macbeath were also told of parents who would do anything to shut their children up “just to get some peace”. Their report says schools face “formidable challenges” – particularly in poor areas where there has been “an increase in the incidence of confrontation and conflict”.

The researchers, who visited schools they studied five years ago, added: “There appeared to have been a significant and inimical impact on school life from a rapidly changing social scene.

“Motivating certain children, it was claimed, had become more difficult because by the time they came to school many of these children had become expert in manipulating adults.”

According to Galton and Macbeath, the top five obstacles to teaching are poor pupil behaviour, lack of time for reflection, large class sizes, too many initiatives and an overloaded curriculum. “Children arrive at school knowing too much and not enough,” they said.

Source: Independent, UK
http://tinyurl.com/4yeyje