As a college student, I learned about the various stages of grief outlined by Dr. Elisbeth Kübler-Ross: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
I've done a bit of air travel over the summer and one thing I noticed is how parents' reactions to their child wailing during a flight mirrors Kübler-Ross' list. I saw saw parents who:
tried to be oblivious and didn't acknowledge the noise or crying (Denial)
told their kids (through gritted teeth) everything was FINE and to STOP. SCREAMING. NOW. (Anger)
offered cookies, crayons, new toys, an extra week at Disney and the sport car of their choice to babies in exchange for silence (Bargaining)
bought mini booze bottles from the flight attendant and rested their foreheads in their hands (Depression)
made eye contact and ruefully smiled in a "Kids!" sort of way (Acceptance)
In a way, it makes a lot of sense. Being forced to play the role of Person with Annoying Crying Kid that every flight is apparently required by law to have, is a death of sorts. You might drive a minivan and know all the rules to Pee Wee soccer, but you never thought you'd have the kid who deafens an entire cabin and causes people do birth control shots and book vasectomies upon landing.
In spite of being sandwiched in a row between not one but two infants quite vocal regarding their displeasure at being delayed on the tarmac while the plane's "computer system" was being worked on (I always suspect that is code for "engine fell out and we need more duct tape"), I was understanding and stink-eye free to the parents of the wailing wee ones.
You see, it wasn't all that long ago that my husband and I were horrified when our normally good-natured firstborn screamed his tiny throat raw on a flight to visit my in-laws. In spite of bouncing, feeding, burping, changing, cajoling, and walking (judging from the looks we were given by fellow passengers, you'd have thought we were also pinching, stabbing, and torturing) the child was inconsolable. Nearly fifteen years later, I still wish I could send everyone on that flight a doctors note explaining the baby had a double ear infection and the screaming was the result of pain from take-off and landings.
No, there will never be an evil glance from me due to a crying baby on a plane. However, the preschooler who kicks the back of my seat the entire trip is another story........
This week there was frost on the ground and the sky was strewn with wind-tattered clouds, V's of honking geese, and the last wayward monarchs heading toward
. At recess the kids would pause for a second, mid soccer game, to look up at the sky and yell LOOK! LOOK! Their faces full of wonder and glee.
It was the kind of weather that called us outdoors every day for an extra mid-morning recess.
Even though I'm theoretically sacrificing academic time by heading outdoors for a handful of minutes with my class, I find I mostly gain time because the children are less restless and more willing to settle down with a good chapter book or a math activity when their bodies have had some time to run outdoors. But I also like going outdoors with them because it gives me a chance to watch them interacting together in an unstructured way.
I keep noticing how uncertain they are in their play together without an adult intervening for them whenever something doesn't go their way.
I know. I've probably exhausted you with my posts about play and children, but it's my obsession. I can't let it go.
Hard to believe but it's already flu season again. Or, to be more accurate, it's really (hopefully) flu PREVENTION season. This week the Center for Disease Control whipped out a new, stronger than ever campaign to get pregnant women and young children vaccinated. This campaign, of course, is not without its controversy. Not so long ago, one of our commenters seemed to think the topic of vaccinations was my high horse, as I write about it frequently, but I can assure you that's not the case. I'm a parent, too, with the same concerns as many of you regarding vaccines and children's health--I'm just interested in getting as much information as possible and seeing how the whole thing turns out.
According to the CDC, children as young as six months of age should be getting flu vaccinations. It strongly recommended vaccinations for kids up to eighteen years old, pregnant women, healthcare workers and anyone over the age of fifty. Seems harmless enough, right? I mean, most of us have gotten at least one flu shot in our lives and for the most part we turned out OK. The problem with the flu vaccine, which contains thimerosal, is that thimerosal contains mercury. Yep, mercury. Rather DANGEROUS. Now, that said, we've all been assured that even if it did contain said mercury, the amount would be no more than that in a small can of tuna. Contrary to that, however, are the findings that the kind of mercury found in thimerosal differs from that found in tuna (methyl mercury) in that it stays in the system, namely the brain, for a lot longer period of time. This is not great news for a developing fetal brain.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists claim that pregnant women should be getting this vaccine and that there isn't any evidence of harmful effects to women or their unborn children. According to some that notion is quite misleading as it implies that tons of tests and research has been done on the subject, when, in fact, it has not. Still, what would my pediatrician say? Well, he'd tell me that the chances of something happening to my child as a result of the flu vaccine are a great deal smaller than what might happen if he remained unvaccinated. When one weighs the odds from that perspective the vaccination wins out.
Clearly, more research is needed and the results well-established before we make any uniform decisions with respect to vaccinating our children--unborn or not. The other side of the argument? Opt for what my pediatrician did--offer flu shots without thimerosal. Hopefully, pregnant women can get that option too.
Lindsay over at Suburban Turmoil wrote an interesting post about her experience with a "red shirted" kindergartener. What used to be a bit of a shameful secret, holding a child back from starting kindergarten at their appointed time has become nearly standard practice in some communities and is considered a way to help kids get an academic (and possibly athletic) leg up.
I have an elementary education degree and managed to have three sons with fall birthdays, which meant we had to determine when they started kindergarten. Having seen kindergarteners struggling in school firsthand meant a huge amount of soul-searching. In the end, it came down to using our best judgment as parents as well as taking into consideration the professional recommendations of the boys' preschool teacher, who was an invaluable resource to figure out what to do with our borderline birthday boys.
The oldest of the trio started kindergarten a month before his 5th birthday. He was a great listener, could sit still, pay attention, follow instructions, and got along with others. Years later, he still has these skills and completed 8th grade with a 4.0 grade point, a lot of friends, and because he takes after his tall father, excelled in sports against kids nearly a year older them him.
My 2nd and 3rd fall birthday boys were both held back for maturity reasons. The older of the two later skipped a grade and seems to have landed exactly where he belongs academically and socially. The younger was our biggest question mark. He probably could have started earlier, but I believe it's easier to skip ahead a grade then to be suffer the embarrassment of being held back. He's doing great and loves his teacher and school in general.
Holding a child back so they'll have the advantage of being physically larger for high school sports is a shameful practice that needs to be addressed. However, holding a child back because they're not emotionally, socially, or behaviorally ready isn't the same thing. In those cases, "red shirting" might be the greatest academic assistance a parent could ever give.
There's no prize for finishing high school at the youngest age, the point is to learn. For some kids, allowing that extra year to mature can make a world of difference.
Parents with no time for tradition baby books quickly discovered that blogging baby was time-saving electronic alternative to keep friends and relatives updated on their child's growth and development.
"It's an interesting model," said Amanda Lenhart, a senior research specialist for the Pew Internet & American Life Project. "Everyone can decide how much or little they want to know about a baby, which avoids the situation of receiving a few too many e-mails about someone's wonderful child, and parents can decide how much they want to share - in minimal or maximal ways."
Parents can also use the networking platforms to create a group of cyberspace peer "friends" for their infants, but one has to wonder.........why?! Is this a way for parents to now cyberly helicopter their children before the tots can even speak for themselves or is it an attempt to create the next generation's Dooce, or simply a way to lighten the monotony of caring for a sleepless infant?
The number of people (especially children) afflicted with asthma continues to skyrocket, so it's a bit unusual to have the researchers who may have uncovered a clue in asthma/allergy puzzle less than jubilant about their findings.
The reason behind the trepidation? The possible link for developing asthma was found in acetaminophen, the popular fever and pain-reducer recommended for children in lieu of aspirin which can cause the potentially deadly Reyes Syndrome. "We are saying there may be a(n acetaminophen) link. We don't yet know whether it is causative," said Richard Beasley who led the international study on acetaminophen involving more than 200,000 children in 31 countries.
In the study, parents of children ages 6-7 were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding their children's history of acetaminophen usage and whether the child had developed asthma or other allergies. The results revealed that children who received acetaminophen for the treatment of fever in the first year of life were, on average, 46 per cent more likely to develop asthma by the age of 6 or 7, compared with infants not given the medication.
However, those involved with the research were quick to point out that the study was far from definitive proof that acetaminophen is behind the recent dearth of asthma cases. "I think there is potential for harm from our findings if we don't get the correct message to the public," Dr. Beasley said.
That message is: acetaminophen remains the safest way to treat children with fevers but parents should still consider it a serious medication.
I read an article on babble from a mother who decided, along with her husband, to not send her child to kindergarten this fall. Instead the couple are planning on home-schooling their son, along with a group of other New York City-based parents with the same idea. Upon initial read of the article, I didn't really get much of a takeaway. In fact, it seemed like homeschooling better suited the lifestyles of the parents than serving as a decision based on the child's needs. That said, it seems like parents know their children better than anyone else, and therefore should know what method of learning is best suited for their kids. The author had her reasons for doing what she did--or, rather, not doing what she would have--and she should be given cred for making such a decision.
Some of the other parents in the homeschooling group felt that the schools were too focused on testing and not really teaching kids what they needed to know, etc. Standardized testing really has taken hold of our community, and both parents and teachers have felt the uncomfortable crunch. Parents are starting to feel their children aren't being taught how to learn anymore, just what to learn. I can see a real argument for homeschooling.
But, is that the right reason to pull a kid out of school? Is any reason good enough? Or, to the contrary, do the schools need to start proving to us they can offer more than what we as parents can do for our children? If schools aren't listening to the needs of parents and children then what is the point? I personally don't know enough about proper education and the education system to be able to make a decision as hard as keeping my child out of school. Others seem to have it all worked out, down to ordering specific, home-based curriculum to teach their kids themselves. Some prefer to let the child learn more freestyle, and eschew more traditional methods. I'll tell you right now the last thing my kid needs is for me to be his main teacher! It's terrifying to me to even begin to think about everything I think he ought to know, and then how I would get all that knowledge to him. He'd be better off learning from our weiner dog!
So who's right? Do parents know enough to be able to make decisions like homeschooling for their kids? Does the education system really serve our needs and is it really preparing our children for the future? I think the answer probably lies somewhere outside both those things, but only time will tell.
Actress and sometime do-gooder Angelina Jolie claims she makes action movies for her children. I'm not sure who got her to come out of her shell long enough to hear this information--Jolie has been tucked away safely since the birth of her twins Vivienne and Knox--but perhaps this is old info just now being issued to keep us satisfied while we await her return to the media frenzy that is her life.
According to Jolie, she wants her kids to be able to see the films and be proud of her. I'm not sure how proud anyone would be of efforts like Tombraider 2, but hey, Jolie claims to also do all her own stunts--that would be pretty rockin' if it's fact. Jolie says she does that to prove to her children they can do anything to which they set their minds. Fair enough.
The star should be more proud of her philanthropic ways, which I am also sure she hopes to pass on to her kids. Learn by example, right? If that's true then there should be six more philanthropists among the Jolie-Pitt clan to carry on the work of Ange and Brad Pitt. Either that or they'll all want to appear in remakes of their parents' films!
Blame it on The Cure. Blame it on Edward Gory. Whatever you do, though, you can't deny the Goth. The culture, the fashion, hey, the eyeliner. It's alive and well now as it always seems to have been--at least since the late seventies/early eighties. And it shows no signs of slowing down. Eyeliner sales must be through the roof!
The New York Times has a funny article about one author's personal history with the Gothic culture, which could pretty much be any of our own histories. I grew up in the middle of the country, in Louisville, Kentucky, and even those well-manicured lawns and competing mall-lifestyles were susceptible to an outbreak of Goth every now and then. Perhaps we were a more likely target for Goth style because of all that sameness. No matter where you went as a teen, it seemed, there were some Goth kids hanging around comparing weird jewelry and competing for who could don the most dark apparel.
So what is the point, you ask? If Goth has been around for so long, and none of today's teens are exactly reinventing the wheel, why bother with the eyeliner (so to speak)? Why has Goth culture endured? Fashion historian Valerie Steele (who shares a name with my best friend), who was interviewed for the article, says Goth, which originated in the Victorian era by way of mourning garb, that while it started out representing death and abuse, now it's just about plain old rebellion. How rebellious can you be though, when everyone else is wearing the same thing? Show up to school in a white suit or a gold lamé cocktail dress and we'll talk!
For many kids, the day they receive a jersey or uniform with their name printed boldly on the back is proud one. They are on the team and everyone who goes to the games will know exactly who they are!
Which is precisely what worried one parent enough to lobby for the removal of children's first names from the jerseys of the Carmel Dads Club. "She raised the concern about someone coming up to a kid and saying, 'Hi, Mary' or 'Hi, Jimmy,' and that might lead the youngster to believe that they knew them," said Mike McKinley, president of the organization that involves 12,000 kids in nearly a dozen different sports.
While some support the change, others feel it's catering to a culture of paranoia. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children cautions parents that kids wearing clothing or carrying personalized items could put strangers "on a first name basis with the kids", but also acknowledges that in the majority of cases, children are abducted or exploited by someone the child or the child's parents knows not by a stranger.
We've never been on a team where first names were used on uniforms, only last names. Maybe I'm just naive, but my biggest worry was that someone with "Felton" across their back would do something embarrassing like scratch their butt or pick their nose in front of everyone. For me, having names on the players helps me figure out who is who on the field better than just a number. However, plain jerseys have the economical advantage of being reusable and reducing the cost of sports for parents.
Also, removing names from uniforms may make parents feel safer, but it doesn't completely remove the danger. There are enough people yelling out kids' names during sporting events to make it pretty easy for a profiler to figure out who is who if this is information they really want to know.
What do you think is this a prudent preventative measure or just parental paranoia?
For many, BC could easily stand for "Before Cellphones," so unimaginable is life without these handy devices.
And while giving a child his or her own cell phone is now nearly as common a ritual as buying them a bike, the age cellphone ownership is appropriate for children is still rather uncharted territory. The allure of GPS tracking capability has parents of children as young as three considering a cell phone a worthwhile investment in safety, in the even of the child being separated from them in a crowd.
While giving a toddler their own cell phone seems rather extreme, the age at which a child is given a cell phone is rapidly plummeting. The Center on Media and Child Health web site states that 54 percent of 8- to 12-year-olds will have a cell phone in the next three years.
In our house, we didn't feel the kids needed cell phones until they were old enough to be involved in after school activities. Having a cell phone meant they could call when the bus was returning after an out of town game and save us from a forty-five minute wait in the school parking lot. And with pay phones practically on the endangered species list, a cell phone means they can get 911 assistance where ever they might be.
But kids and cell phones also have downsides. For one thing, there's the money issue. Kids are notorious for losing items and cell phones are not cheap. Nor are most cell phone plans or the overage charges when kids get a little too chatty or succumb to the allure of downloading. There's also the back-of-the-mind worry on what the long-term effect radiation waves from a device held so close to the brain might have on developing bodies.
Does you child have a cell phone? If so, how did you decide when they were old enough to have one?
Too busy for pen and paper? Try the 
Have you found the perfect babysitter? 
Lindsay over at Suburban Turmoil 
Parents with no time for tradition baby books quickly discovered that blogging baby was time-saving electronic alternative to keep friends and relatives updated on their child's growth and development. 
The number of people (especially children) afflicted with asthma continues to skyrocket, so it's a bit unusual to have the researchers who may have uncovered a clue in asthma/allergy puzzle less than jubilant about their findings. 
Arrrrr! Yesterday was 'Talk Like a Pirate Day.' Alpha Mom has 
For many kids, the day they receive a jersey or uniform with their name printed boldly on the back is proud one. They are on the team and everyone who goes to the games will know exactly who they are!
For many, BC could easily stand for "Before Cellphones," so unimaginable is life without these handy devices.
