Archive for the ‘Parenting’ Category

Kids Are Addicted to the Internet

July 4, 2011

If kids are addicted to internet, Facebook and Twitter, it’s not as if their parents have no options. Reading about how fearful parents are about theeffects of their children’s addictions, I couldn’t help but wonder why they felt so powerless.

A third of all UK parents believe that their children are in danger from the internet and 80 per cent think it is possible to become addicted to social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, a new study suggests. It also found that a third of parents even believe that the web can “rewire” a person’s brain.

Internet charity the Nominet Trust, who commissioned the research, say there is no evidence that social networks are harmful in themselves, and that there is no neurological evidence of the web changing brains.

Facebook and Twitter, they suggested, usually in fact reinforce existing friendships, while even playing video games has been show to improve coordination and ‘visual processing skills’.

Parents can take control over their children’s internet access.  Some recommendations include:

  • Capping time on the internet
  • No internet access in their bedrooms
  • Ensuring that they do not have a Facebook page if they are under 13.
  • Imposing strict bedtimes.

If you do not hinder access to the web and have no rules or involvement in how it is used, you have something to worry about.  This addiction is very real and requires a proactive response.

Lazy Parents Blamed for Kids Falling Behind at School

June 19, 2011

It is a gross simplification to blame parents for their children’s slow academic development.  Last time I looked, a large part of a child’s day is spent at school.  It is simply unfair to blame parents when the failings of the education system is so apparent.  Blame should be shared between all key stakeholders.

It is also unfair to blame parents as lazy.  Often these same parents that don’t play enough games with their children work multiple jobs and long hours to put their children into good schools.  I play games and practice reading with my daughter every night, but by the time I sit down with her she is exhausted from a long day at school.  If I can’t rely on her school in keeping up their end of the bargain, then even my best efforts may not be enough.

Whilst I do not in any way condone putting a child in front of a television, I believe that the school system should be able to make up any developmental lag as a result of misspent toddler time.  If the school system can’t help overturn a 4-year old’s slow development with 7 hours a day of school instruction, then it says a lot about the failings of our school system.

Neuro-psychologist, Sally Goddard Blythe, disagrees:

LAZY parenting is resulting in children starting school developmentally disadvantaged because they watch too much TV instead of playing and being read to.

A neuro-psychologist in the UK, Sally Goddard Blythe, researched the link between children who missed out on simple childhood activities and those who started school with learning problems.

She found many toddlers were watching 4.5 hours of TV a day instead of playing, and went on to start school with poor emotional development and motor skills.

Dr Marc de Rosnay, an early childhood development expert from the University of Sydney’s school of psychology, said children were put in front of a television screen too often.

“We are living in a world where there are lots of opportunities for a child to be engaged with no one for an extended time,” he said. “There is some decent research that shows that motor skills develop when kids are out and about and experiencing the physical world … as a nation (we now have) more children growing up with low levels of activity.

“There are government recommendations about how much TV kids should be watching, and it’s not much.”

While he stopped short of saying that parents who did not read to their children or interact with them were “neglectful”, Dr de Rosnay said there were developmental consequences for children who missed out on that nurturing.

“It’s fair to say that children who miss out on interacting with their parents, peers and siblings will find themselves at a disadvantage compared with children who have had that interaction,” he said.

But he added that using play to develop a bond and trust between parents and child was more important than teaching a child to read at a young age.

“We live in a world now where children are meant to be numerate and have the first steps of letter recognition before they start kindergarten,” he said. “We used to live in a world where kindergarten was the place that was done.”

Dr de Rosnay said there was no evidence that if a child started school unable to read and write it would affect their long-term learning.

Ms Goddard Blythe found that almost half of all UK five-year-olds who started school only had the motor skills of a baby, including the inability to hold a pencil. The cause, she said, was because parents had not spent enough time playing with their children or letting them play with others.

Ms Goddard-Blythe also argued that when children missed out on being read fairy tales, it impacted on their ability to understand “moral behaviour” and how to deal with emotions.

Instead of putting all the blame on parents, the educational system should get with reality.  They should prepare for the fact that students may not have motor skills that enable them to properly grip a pencil etc.  Instead of complaining that students show a lack of understanding of proper moral behaviour due to a lack of exposure to fairy tales, ensure that fairy tales is part of the early years curriculum.

Anyone that thinks a 5-year old can’t radically improve in motor skills and the ability to make moral choices has never been in a classroom.

Parents should always do their best to help their kids.  But they are not the only stakeholders in the education of our children.

Talk About an Overreaction!

May 27, 2011

A school teacher expects her students to clean after themselves if they urinate on the toilet seat and is forced to take administrative leave!  It turns out that the child was allergic to bleach.  This story should have stayed in-house.  It is certainly not front page news, and even if you were of the belief that the teacher acted negligently, you would have to wonder how this story caused a media sensation and triggered emergency PTO meetings.

An elementary school teacher has been suspended and is being investigated by authorities after allegedly forcing children to scrub the school toilets with bleach.

For two years, Catherine Saur, from Hartford, Connecticut, would make any student who used the bathroom thoroughly clean the room after they were done, parents claim.

Some mothers and fathers said their children would wet themselves during the day to avoid the chore, while one eighth-grader had his hands seriously burned after suffering an allergic reaction to the bleach.

Last night’s emergency school meeting was called after principal Peter Dart sent a letter to parents to inform them the art teacher had been reported to authorities.

Principal Dart said he did not endorse or know about the practice until it came to his attention last week.

He said: ‘It is imperative that we pause, that we take stock in what we are doing. That we learn from this and that we move forward.’

Newsflash: Teacher’s make mistakes.  Some may consider this one to be a bigger one than I do, but for goodness sake, how unfair is it to this poor teacher to have her reputation muddied over what is fairly honest intentions.  Teacher’s should get their students to take an active and responsible approach to cleaning up after themselves from a young age.  Perhaps this teacher took the message a little too far, but she did not deserve the media frenzy she got.  Emergency PTO meetings?  Are you serious?  Seriously burnt?  That’s not what the mother says in the video?  Kids wetting themselves to avoid cleaning after themselves? C’mon media! Get your act together!

And Principal Dart, why don’t you come to the defence of your teacher?  By trying to minimise the negative PR of your school, you seem to be leaving your art teacher out in the cold.  I should be reading about how dedicated this teacher is and how she has a great rapport with her students and a genuine passion for teaching.  I should be reading about how she regrets her actions, has learnt from them and looks forward to resuming the job she loves so much.

Surely a statement like that will have raised the confidence of the public and helped to kill the story in the process.

Parenting, Like Teaching is a Balancing Act

May 17, 2011

Society only knows two ways of dealing with a given problem.  The two ways I speak of, are the two extremes at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Take teaching for example. On the one hand you have the advocates for a teacher centred approach.  This philosophy maintains that the teacher must be strong, exact discipline and be emotionally distant from the students.  It considers empowering students to be weak and counter productive.

Pretty extreme, huh?

Well unfortunately, so is the alternate philosophy.  The child centered approach to teaching, puts the emphasis on the child to direct learning, make critical choices and set the agenda.  Discipline takes a back seat in this approach as does rules and the authority of the teacher.

Both approaches are extreme.  Both have good ideas, but miss the most important aspect of any philosophy – balance.  In truth, both approaches can be melded into one by a teacher who can incorporate both styles of teaching through constant adjustment and introspection.

Unfortunately, parenting experts tend to take on unbalanced and incredibly extreme positions.  A few months ago we had the infamous Tiger Mother, who postulated that restricting her children from enjoying play dates and leisure time helped instill happiness in their lives.

Of course, there will always be an extreme position, advocating the exact opposite:

MEET the “serenity parents” – pizza and cartoons are in, too much sport or trombone lessons are out.

A US author is urging parents to lighten up and let their children have more fun, instead of obsessing over their lives.

Dr Bryan Caplan said modern mums and dads worried too much, and should take a back seat.

He advocated “serenity parenting” as an antidote to tight control and a plethora of extra-curricular activities, saying they would make no difference when children grew up.

Dr Caplan gives guilt-ridden parents the nod to let their children watch more television, and quit activities they don’t enjoy.

The father of three, including twins, has penned the new book, Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids: Why Being A Great Parent Is Less Work And More Fun Than You Think.

Dr Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University in Virginia, said research on twins had shown genetics was more important than upbringing in moulding children.

“The most prominent conclusion of twin research is that practically everything – health, intelligence, happiness, success, personality, values, interests – is partly genetic,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal column.

“With a few exceptions, the effect of parenting on adult outcomes ranges from small to zero.”

South Morang mother of two Renee Mayne relates to serenity parenting, saying she strives to create a stress-free home for daughters Maddison, 4, and Milly, 2.

“If we can balance a relaxed environment, where we listen, create boundaries and instil good values it’s not only serenity parenting, but a balanced lifestyle,” she said.

Parenting is the hardest job in the world.  So-called parenting experts try to give us quick fixes that sound easy, but miss the mark on two crucial factors.

1.  No child is the same.  There is no perfect parenting technique that will work on all kids;

2.  These methods almost uniformly lack balance.  Whilst it wouldn’t sell books, the best approach to take is to try a whole series of common sense ideas, whilst continually modifying and adjusting ones style according to what works for a particular child at a particular time.

I find that the best experts don’t preach to others, because they are aware that every child responds differently to situations and parenting styles.  And every child presents a unique challenge to their parents.

No, Dr Caplan, parenting children effectively invariably isn’t  “less work  than you think.”

Monitoring Your Child’s Facebook

April 28, 2011

It’s never ideal to secretly review your child’s activities, but sometimes it’s an imperative that cannot be avoided.  Rather than recommend that parents use this new innovation that allows them to oversee their child’s Facebook page without being classified as their friend, I think it’s important to alert parents and teachers of its existence.

INTERNET security firm Check Point overnight launched software that lets parents watch over offspring on Facebook without being “friends” at the online social network.

ZoneAlarm SocialGuard alerts parents to signs of trouble in a child’s Facebook account without them being privy to all posts, comments, pictures, videos or other digital content shared between friends at the website.

The program scans Facebook profiles, communications and “friend” requests and uses algorithms to identify potential bullying, sexual overtures, or talk of drugs, violence or suicide.

SocialGuard software runs unseen in the background, flagging suspicious activity and sending alerts to parents, according to its Redwood City, California-based creators.

“It’s about protecting your kids from the social threats out there, while still respecting their privacy and fostering open communication,” said Check Point vice president of consumer sales Bari Abdul.

“We are offering Facebook users a simple way to embrace social networking safely,” he continued.

SocialGuard is crafted to detect hacked accounts, malicious links, online predators, and cyber-bullies, according to Check Point.

The software also checks to determine whether people contacting children online are being deceptive about their ages or if a stranger is trying to become a Facebook “friend.”

“Parents are increasingly concerned, and rightfully so, about the dramatically increasing trend of criminals, predators and bullies targeting children over social networks,” said analyst Rob Enderle of Enderle Group in Silicon Valley.

“SocialGuard provides a strong suite of tools that can effectively protect children from these types of social threats that are keeping parents awake at night.”

Check Point cited a survey indicating that 38 percent of teenagers have ignored requests from parents to be friends on Facebook, and that 16 percent of children have only done so as a condition of using the social network.

SocialGuard was available online at zonealarm.com for $US2 ($1.85) monthly or $US20 annually.

Spying on kids is the very last resort.  You would hope that children are able to use social media responsibly.  Unfortunately, too often that is not the case.  Therefore, for safety reasons, it is important that parents are aware of safeguards like this one.

There’s Only One Thing Worse Than Leaving Your Kids

March 15, 2011

There’s only one thing worse than leaving your kids, and that’ s writing a book that encourages others to do the same.  Rahna Reiko Rizzuto may be a good writer, but her words, as eloquent as they may be, are bound to do far more harm than good.

Rahna Reiko Rizzuto left her home in New York and traveled to Hiroshima, Japan, in search of her war-torn heritage in June 2001. Rizzuto had received a fellowship to spend six months interviewing the few survivors of the atomic bomb.

Four months into her fellowship, Rizzuto received a visit from her husband and children, and she had a revelation: She didn’t want to be a mother.

In an essay for Salon, Rizzuto writes:

Without a strong marriage to support me, after four months alone and in a new country I had grown to love but was only just beginning to understand how to navigate, I had no idea what to do with these bouncing balls of energy. Even feeding them, finding them a bathroom, was a challenge.

Rizzuto realized that motherhood was an all-encompassing responsibility and she didn’t want to be swallowed up by it.

When Rizzuto returned to New York, she ended her marriage with her high school sweetheart and handed him the reins to the children. She gave him primary custody.

Her choice is out-of-the-ordinary; less than 4 percent of children live with their father only and in most cases its because a mother has passed away.

Rizzuto lost many friends who viewed her decision as selfish.

Her children were 3 and 5 years-old at the time.  Of course she was selfish!  But that isn’t what makes me so upset.  It’s the fact she feels this decision is so positive, that she wants to reach out to other mothers who are struggling with the same feeling of entrapment.

People are entitled to make bad decisions, and in my opinion Rizzuto has made a shocking decision.  But what disturbs me more is that she wants to encourage others to do the same.  When a man or woman decides to make a family they must choose to make their family their number one priority.  Is it selfish to leave your kids for no other reason than you are not enjoying the role of parent.

I heard her interviewed on The View this afternoon.  One of the panelists made the point that if Rizzuto was a man, this story wouldn’t have received so much publicity.  To that assertion I make the following points:

  1. Does that make it right.  No father should ever put the children they helped bring into this world second.  No father should ever tell their kids they don’t love being a father so they’ve decided to live down the street.  That is unacceptable and downright selfish!
  2. Rizzuto wants publicity.  She seems to be having the time of her life appearing on all kids of media and flogging her book.
  3. What if a man wrote a book encouraging other men to leave their children in favour of a more free lifestyle?  How do you think that will go down?


The following quotes from an article about her really upset me:

Today, Rizzuto is an author and faculty member at Goddard College in Vermont, and she’s creating her own sort of motherhood that challenges our culture’s definition of what a mother should be. She lives down the street from her ex-husband and her children. The boys are teenagers and come to her house for dinner but they always return to Dad’s house to sleep.

I don’t think it is “motherhood” she is creating.  Let’s not let a selfish decision gets confused with a new style of parenting.  And why can’t she have them over for the night?  Is it going to remind her for a fleeting moment that she is their mother?

She says that leaving her children improved rather than hurt her relationship with them. “I had to leave my children to find them,” she writes on Salon.

How can she assess that?  They were 5 and 3 when she left them!  Surely they were too young for a before and after comparison!  And this isn’t about how good her relationship is with them, it’s about the quality of care they get from their mother.  The fact that her kids have a good relationship is more of an indication of her children’s strength of character than it is a validation of her decision to leave them.
And that line,  “I had to leave my children to find them”, is just appalling.  This isn’t about you.  This is about your two kids under five that didn’t ask to be born and then left with their father because their mother didn’t want to look after them.
People make decisions.  Some of them are right and some wrong.  What I don’t approve of is turning a decision which affects children in a negative manner into a new movement claiming to be about choice and freedom.
I’d love to read her kids’ book one day.  Perhaps they wouldn’t endorse the “new style of parenting” as much as their mother does.