Forget Mozart CDs and Baby Einstein videos, Boston’s mayor is urging parents to teach preschool children the old-fashioned way: by talking, reading, and playing with them.

Hoping to turn a new page on early-childhood education in Boston, Mayor Thomas M. Menino declared today as “Talk, Read, Play Day” in conjunction with Boston public schools’ Countdown to Kindergarten program and ReadBoston.

The day is part of a new public awareness campaign focused on the role of parents and their responsibility as their child’s “first teacher,” from birth until age 5.

The program’s three components of interaction meld to give babies and toddlers essential skills. Talking, reading, and playing help young children develop longer attention spans, larger vocabularies, and proper social interactions as well as foster creativity, imagination, and problem-solving skills, Menino said.

“Talk, Read, Play” is part of Thrive in 5, Boston’s new 10-year plan, spearheaded by Menino and the United Way, to ensure Boston children are prepared for educational success.

The program, implemented in March after two years of planning and $3.25 million in funding from the city, the United Way, and area hospitals, highlights the importance of a child’s first five years in five areas of growth: language development, cognition and general knowledge, approaches to learning, social and emotional development, and physical and motor development.

Source: Boston Globe, United States
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/12/mayor_to_parents_read_to_children/

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

With many grandparents baby-sitting their grandchildren during the day, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health wondered whether those children might be at a higher risk of injury in the care of older people whose parenting lessons were learned in an era where car seats weren’t the law and child-proofing wasn’t a multimillion-dollar industry.

The findings, published yesterday in the journal Pediatrics, surprised its authors. In some cases, working parents who chose to have grandparents care for their children cut the risk of childhood injury in half. Even when compared with organized day care or care by the mother or other relatives, having a grandmother watch the child was associated with decreased injury for the child.

“There are some grandparents you would not leave alone with grandchildren,” he said. But “you’re not going to hurt them if you do the right selection.”

Among other findings: The odds of injury were greater among children of parents who never married compared with those whose parents stayed married. The odds of injury were greater for children living in homes without their father.

Bishai and colleagues analyzed data collected about more than 5,500 newborns in 15 U.S. cities in 1996-1997, with a follow-up 30 to 33 months later. Bishai said he does not know whether the information would be different had it been collected more recently.

Delores Miller, 63, said she gladly volunteered to provide child care for her granddaughter Imani when Miller’s daughter returned to work at a Baltimore credit union. She bought Imani a toy mop, broom and vacuum so when it was time for housekeeping they did it side by side. And during trips to the grocery store, she made sure Imani always stayed close.

“Children can get more one-on-one attention, rather than in a group of people,” said Miller, who cared for Imani for six years until she started first grade this fall. “Imani was more familiar with me than anyone else. I know more about her behavior and well-being than any stranger would.”

Source: Baltimore Sun, United States
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.grandparents04nov04,0,6701080.story

I suspected it would happen; I just didn’t think it would happen so quickly. Shortly after the historic achievement of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, and just before the historic nomination of Sen. Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, a major newspaper ran a full-page story celebrating the news that single moms succeed in raising accomplished sons.

The article cited Mr. Phelps, Mr. Obama and others, including cycling great Lance Armstrong, to make the case that boys raised by single mothers are doing just fine, thank you. It also quoted a number of supportive experts, including Peggy Drexler, author of a book called “Raising Boys Without Men.”

Interestingly, Mrs. Drexler, who has been married for more than 36 years to the father of her son, asserts quite firmly that although boys do need men, they do not need fathers. Her position is essentially that one should not fret about fatherless boys because they have a way of finding the male involvement they need.

Well, yes and no.

Boys certainly will find male involvement, but since boys will be, well, boys, they often do not make the right choices. Case in point is convicted D.C. sniper Lee Malvo, who selected John Muhammad. And there are countless boys who join gangs to find the male involvement they so desperately crave.

That said, my biggest problem was less with the article than with the “straw man” - or rather, “straw father” - argument that it is “news” that single mothers can and do raise successful boys. As one who was raised by a single mother and has undergraduate and master’s degrees from two Ivy League universities, I am a bit of a poster child on this point. (Thanks, Mom.)

However, “Can single mothers do it?” is not the right question. There are more thoughtful ways of viewing the issue.

First, should single mothers have to raise their children alone? Remember, every child has an “involved” father at conception. I do a lot of speaking about the importance of involved fatherhood. No parent has ever come up to me after a speech to say they hope their daughter will become a single mother.

Second, this issue is not about what kind of a man a boy will become but, also, what kind of a father he will become. It’s difficult to be what you don’t see. Accordingly, as a nation, we have to ask this question - how does a culture that promotes and, too often, celebrates father absence, create an environment in which boys develop a desire to become present and involved fathers?

Third, in addition to the well-documented social and emotional costs of father absence for our nation’s children, it is also expensive. Recently, National Fatherhood Initiative released a report called, “The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man - The Annual Public Costs of Father Absence.” The report measured the federal expenditures on child-support enforcement and 13 means-tested benefits programs that support father-absent homes. The $100 billion cost represents nearly 4 percent of the 2006 federal budget. Indeed, in these difficult financial times, we cannot afford father absence.

Finally, I believe the way we look at smoking is the most appropriate and thoughtful way to look at father absence and the resulting single motherhood. Specifically, it is pretty clear the majority of people who smoke do not immediately get lung cancer. This is why it is so difficult to curb teen smoking. Nonetheless, we spend millions of dollars on campaigns and efforts to reduce smoking. Why? Because we know that those who smoke are at a higher risk for cancer, heart disease or worse. Knowing this, would anyone support celebrating the fact that many smokers beat the odds? I doubt it.

Social science data assert overwhelmingly that boys in father-absent homes are more at risk to be poor, fail in school, use drugs or be involved in the criminal justice system. Therefore, we should encourage responsible fatherhood and discourage a culture of single motherhood for the same reason - the increased risk to our sons. In my view, we do not have a fatherless boy to spare.

Source: Washington Times, DC
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/despite-successes-boys-need-fathers/

Conventional wisdom says low-income parents whose children attend low-performing public schools do not care much about their children’s education and, therefore, are not involved in their children’s schools and their children’s learning away from school.

Now, a new report, “One Dream, Two Realities,” commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, turns conventional wisdom on its head. The report shows that instead of not caring, such parents are the most likely to see rigorous education and their own involvement as being essential to their children’s success.

The researchers argue that society needs to stop blaming parents when students in low-performing schools do not succeed and start considering how schools are failing both their charges and the parents.

To reach their conclusions, researchers conducted focus groups and a nationally representative survey of 1,006 parents of current and recent high school students in urban, suburban and rural towns and cities across the nation. Parents verified whether their children attend or attended high-performing schools, moderate-performing schools or low-performing schools, the major criterion being the proportion of students from those high schools who go on to college.

The report confirms what educators and scholars have known: Parents are the key to the educational success of their children.

One of the report’s critical findings is that most of the nation’s approximately 25-million parents with children in high schools want to be more involved but are frustrated when schools do not give them adequate information or opportunities to participate more effectively.

Not surprisingly, the report shows that 83 percent of parents with students in high-performing schools said their school was doing a very or fairly good job communicating with them about their child’s academic performance, compared to only 43 percent of parents with students in low-performing schools. Seventy percent of parents whose children attend high-performing schools say the school does a good job informing parents of the requirements for graduation and college admission, compared with only 38 percent of parents of students in low-performing schools.

Another key finding, again bucking conventional wisdom, is that most minority parents want their children to attend college. In fact, 92 percent of black parents and 90 percent of Hispanic parents consider going to college to be “very important,” compared to 78 percent of white parents.

As more students join the ranks of the estimated 1.2-million who do not graduate annually, educators are trying to find ways to get more parents involved. Among the report’s suggestions based on what parents said they want:

• Flexible parent-teacher conferences that consider the schedules of parents who work;

• Immediate notification when their children have academic problems, cut classes or skip school;

• Homework hot lines to assist both children and parents;

• More information about graduation requirements and college admissions;

• Conferences in eighth or ninth grade to discuss what it will take for their children to succeed in high school;

• One faculty adviser who tracks their student all the way through high school as a mentor and a personal point of contact;

• Incorporate homework assignments that involve families in every course.

The report concludes that “America itself has two school systems — one that is largely equipping children for the demands of high school, college and the workplace and another that is too often failing them; one that is effectively engaging parents in the education of their children and another that is failing to do so. … Schools and parents have clear pathways to begin to improve one element that we know has dramatic impact on the education of children — the sustained engagement of parents who play vital roles in educating their children and nurturing them into the future.”

“One Dream, Two Realities” may have flaws, but in light of the urgency it brings to the issue of parental involvement, those flaws can be forgiven. It correctly points out that the current state of our public school system is “inconsistent with America’s promise of equal opportunity.”

Source: Tampabay.com, FL
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article884627.ece

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

Children from broken homes are almost five times more likely to develop emotional problems than those living with both parents, a report has found.

Young people whose mother and father split up are also three times as likely to become aggressive or badly behaved, according to the comprehensive survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics.

Living in a “reconstituted” family containing step-children or step-parents increased the risk of developing behavioural problems still further, it found.

The stark findings of the study, commissioned by the Department for Health and the Scottish Government, fly in the face of the Government’s repeated failure to extol the benefits on children of growing up in a traditional family home.

Under Labour, the number of couples getting married has fallen to the lowest level for more than a century while almost half of newlyweds are now expected to end up divorcing.

Yet Harriet Harman, the party’s deputy leader, insisted recently that “there is no ‘ideal’ parenting scenario” and “marriage has little relevance to public policy”.

The ONS report involved interviewing parents, teacher and children themselves to find out how many suffered emotional problems such as anxiety or depression, how many had “conduct disorders” such as aggression, and what the possible reasons behind them were.

After interviewing 5,364 children aged between five and 16 in 2004 and again last year, the researchers found that 3 per cent had developed problems over that time. In addition, 30 per cent who had emotional problems at the first survey, and 43 per cent who had behavioural issues, still had them three years later.

The researchers stressed they had not discovered any direct causes of emotional and behavioural problems developing or persisting in children, but agreed there was a link to living in a broken home.

Children whose parents had split up over the three years were 4.53 times more likely to develop emotional problems than those whose mothers and fathers stayed together, and were 2.87 times more likely to show the onset of behavioural disorders.

The report said: “The odds of developing an emotional disorder were increased for children where there had been a change in the number of parents between surveys, from two parents to one parent compared with children and young people in families that had two parents at both times.”

It went on: “Children and young people in households of ‘reconstituted’ families, particularly where there were step-children, were more likely to develop conduct disorder as were those in families which had two parents at Time 1 and one parent at Time 2.”

In addition, children whose mothers were mentally ill were found to be more likely to develop conduct disorders, as were those whose mothers were poorly educated.

Children who endured three stressful events such as seeing one’s parents divorce or appear in court, or suffering a serious disease or being badly injured, were three times as likely to develop emotional problems.

However those who were happy where they lived, had lots of friends or enjoyed activities outside school were less likely to become unhappy.

The report’s author, Nina Parry-Langdon, said: “If children belong to more clubs, it may offer some protection against getting a disorder in the future.”

Source: Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/5h5qea

Australian fathers spend only six minutes alone with their children on weekdays, according to new research which found that dads Down Under leave most child-raising chores to their female partners.

In a study which also looked at parenting roles in Denmark, France, Italy and the United States, researcher Lyn Craig found that Australian fathers were among the most traditional.

“The difference between men’s and women’s lives when they have children is particularly pronounced in Australia,” Craig told AFP.

“In terms of the total amount of child care that’s done within a household in Australia, 10 percent of it will be done alone by the father and 90 percent of it will be done alone by the mother.

“In Denmark, 17 percent of the household care will be done alone by the father. So it’s quite a lot better but it’s by no means equal.”

Craig, from the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre, said that Australian fathers spent more time with their children on weekends, but this was mostly as part of a family group than as a solo dad.

And when they were alone with their offspring, Australian fathers were less likely to do the chores of bathing or feeding the child and more likely to take them to the park or play games with them, she said, adding that men are more prone to volunteer only for “the fun stuff”.

“That’s true worldwide really, but it’s slightly less true in Scandinavia,” she said.

Craig said Australia was quite traditional in comparison to the other countries, with only 18.5 percent of households having both parents in full-time work compared with 64.7 percent of households in Denmark.

“Part-time work for women and full-time work for men is the usual thing in households with children (in Australia), and other countries are a bit more equal in workforce participation,” she said.

“Just about all over the world, men spend relatively little time alone with their children.”

Source: AFP
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3ao1sJAmC-dOJ-PEz4f79CsHxJA

Parents who have their children in their 30s and 40s, give them a better start in life, according to a new study.

Meanwhile children of young, poorly educated mothers are more likely to face health and educational problems before they start school, the report found.

The study is based on interviews with 15,000 families whose first child was born at the turn of the 21st Century.

It suggests delaying parenthood to get the best qualifications and a career first, gives children an advantage over those whose parents have no qualifications, who end up being a year behind in their vocabulary by the time they start school.

“Waiting until 30 to have children seems to be associated with a lot of benefits for the family.”

She said educated parents aged over 30 tend to be more interested in a school’s reputation, anti-bullying policy and class sizes than they are in raw school test scores.

And working parents with higher qualifications do more activities with their children, including reading, music, making things and playing outdoors.

But the report also found that less than two-thirds of children are living with their married natural parents when they enter school.

Pam Barnes, 35, manager of Tidy Towns Wales, from Rhoose in the Vale of Glamorgan had her daughter, Romi, now aged four, when she was 31 years old – and she is glad she waited.

“In my 20s I did a lot of voluntary work but by the time I had Romi I had been settled into my job for a few years, had sorted out my career, was financially stable and I was settled in myself,” she said.

“Romi’s father, Mark Rowles, is a boat pilot, and although we separated in the summer, when we were together, he looked after her two days a week while I worked so we only needed a child minder three times a week.

“It was a special time for them both and it worked well financially for us.

“My mother was a teacher and read to me from an early age and I’ve read to Romi since she was a few months old.

“She started nursery in January and I quickly noticed how socially interactive she is and she loves it, there are no problems. She picks up habits, good and bad – but that is part of life.

“When we get home I talk about her day and she shows me things she has made – and we always make time to read stories together every night.

“Romi attends ballet classes and we like to go into the woods and kick leaves or go to St Fagans and talk about how people used to live on our days off together.”

As was found by the report, Pam said the ethos and the feeling of a school was more important to her than where it sat in the league tables.

“Romi attends Rhoose Primary School nursery, where they have junior discos, get parents involved and the teachers seem very committed,” she added.

“My childminder’s children are in the school and I hear very good reports.”

Emma Brennan spokeswoman for the Family and Parenting Institute said: “You can be a good parent at any age. But we do know that many older parents tend to be better off, have careers and a good education.

“It’s important that all parents get the support they want and need, such as health visitors, when their children are young.”

Source: WalesOnline, United Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/6s7nlw