Don't Pee on the Bee

The "R" Word

This week was Kindergarten Round-up in our area, and JJ and I headed to his new school to check it out.   I've already felt stressed out about it, thinking about letting him go.  Psychologically, I know what to think.  Really, though?  That's a different story.

But I kept thinking about a debate I read this month in the Spring 2010 issue of Brain, Child
magazine:  Should Kindergarten Redshirting Be Banned?  I'll admit that when I first started reading the debate (two different responses from two different writers, both answering the same question), I had no idea what "redshirting" was, but as I started reading, I started to feel a bit uncomfortable!  Why is it called redshirting when you wait a year to send your child to Kindergarten?  It was difficult for me to get through the two positions as I kept coming back to this.  To me, it sounds like a dirty word or something dastardly that a parent is doing.  I still don't get it!

Both of the writers who stated their opinions here had convincing things to say, and naturally, both were pretty adamant in their beliefs.   One common thread mentioned in both sides, though, was the disparity between more affluent families and poorer families and the ability (or not) to keep their children out of Kindergarten for that additional year.  Both also talked about the comparison between children who can be up to 15 months apart in age and how that might not be a good comparison.

Unfortunately, there is no link at the  Brain, Child website to this debate.  I would love for you to be able to read it and chime in.  But I'll quote the last paragraph written by Colette Dedonato, the "yes" response.  She says:

Perhaps the real problem lies in the pressure the American educational system puts on our kids today.  If we lived in Finland, say, our kids would start formal schooling later and wouldn't be expected to learn to read and write so soon.  But we live in a highly competitive country, one that views the win/lose paradigm as a kind of life philosophy.

Any of you teachers want to weigh in on this?

And if you want to read more--with a Nurture Shock bent--check out this Nurture Shock blog post about redshirting.  Interesting--as are the few comments!

Ack! I can't stop myself from reading more . . . tons of articles at education.com including the reason why it is called redshirting.  The term redshirting originally referred to postponing a college athlete's participation in regular season games for one year to give him an extra year of further growth and practice with the team in the hope of improving the player's skills for future seasons.  That doesn't sound so "dastardly" to me!  Seems to make sense.  Hmmmm . . .

And would you like to know the irony in all this?  I just realized that I dressed him in a red shirt today!!!

The Conclusion of Nurture Shock

The Myth of the Supertrait

I loved the conclusion of this book, plain and simple.  It really tied it all together and, I think, puts it into perspective for those who might have felt challenged by it all.  I have debated on how to write this last post because it seemed that it was going to be a very long one in order to cover it all.  Then I debated on just keeping it short and sweet.  But what I realized is that I just wish everyone would read this book!  Then we could have some very interesting conversations!  I now understand why my friend, Tara, has actually read and reread this book very soon after buying it.  There is so much there!  And so many different ways to think about it!  So, if you decide to read it at some later date, let me know.  I think this will always be a worthy topic!

The eventual conclusion of the book states that we may need to give up a few of our preconceived perceptions about children in order to learn more about them.  Bronson and Merryman sum it up as follows: 

". . . the goal o f having a deeper understanding of children is not futile.  In fact, it's by studying these apparent contradictions very closely that deeper understanding emerges.  It's when children are at their most mysterious that we, their caregivers, can learn something new."

Why Hannah Talks and Alyssa Doesn't (Nurture Shock)

As I was beginning to read this chapter, I decided to glance through the rest of the book to see what was left.  Imagine my surprise when I realized that right after this chapter came "Conclusion."  What?  There were still about one quarter of the pages to go!  Then I just felt chagrin as I realized there were pages of notes that I had never even looked at!  (Not feeling so intellectual at the moment.)  And then, of course, the "Selected Sources and References" (which I had expected!)  So it does indeed, appear, that we will be finishing Nurture Shock this week!

Despite scientists' admonitions, parents still spend billions every year on gimmicks and videos, hoping to jump-start infants' language skills.  What's the right way to accomplish this goal?

 Seems like it was relatively recently that all the hubbub about the Baby Einstein DVDs was occurring, yet it was over two years ago.  But that is where this latest chapter of Nurture Shockstarts.  The study that brought this all up was actually a follow-up to an earlier study that was determining why parents were having their babies watch TV.  Contrary to the thought that it was babysitting, there were a significant number of parents who were doing this to give their babies a cognitive edge.  Because of this, a second study was conducted to quantify the actual impact of this specific media exposure.  You will likely recall that the findings showed that the more the children watched, the worse their vocabulary was.  This was not to say that watching these types of DVDs was hurting the children, but it definitely wasn't doing what the parents thought it was doing.  The study also showed that babies benefited more from a live human speaker than a voiceover on an audio track.  Lip-reading is an important piece for babies learning to speak.  Seeing a face,  moving lips, and being able to hear and see when a word begins and ends are all critical.  In fact, even in adults, this is important: seeing someone's lips as they are speaking is equivalent to a 20 decibel increase in volume!

When polled, most parents knew that a word-rich environment was helpful to a baby's developing language skills.  (Believe it or not, there is actually something called a "verbal pedometer" that can be placed near or on your baby to count the number of words that your child hears each day!  Yikes!)  Research has shown that the more words that babies hear, the greater their language acquisition will be.  However, new research has shown that the information flow that truly matters is not what parents put in to their child, but what is coming out of their baby.  Dr. Catherine Tamis-LeMonda found that when parents immediately responded to a baby's vocalizations, these children were six months ahead of their peers in their language skills.  Further studies by Dr. Michael Goldstein showed an increase in the type of vocalizations when parents were  actually coaxed to respond (sometimes with touch, sometimes with words) to their baby.  According to Po Bronson, one of the authors who actually witnessed and heard a mother and baby do this, "To my ear, it was stunning--the children literally sounded five months older, during the second ten-minute period, than they had in the first."  Goldstein warns parents about overdoing this, however, and reminds them about the importance of play time as a means of learning as well.  

To many parents, verbal skills and reading skills seem to be innate, but GOldstein says, "When parents see development in their kids, they are only seeing the output--not the mechanisms underneath.  We just see significant changes, so parents tend to say 'It must be built in.'  I don't think people are aware of what they are bringing to babies."  One study comparing identical and fraternal twins showed that genetic factors are only about 25% of language acquisition.  One researcher, when talking about the differences in being an early- or late-developer says, "The only thing typical about typical language development was variability."  Tamis-LeMonda agrees and says that "sometimes a kid who seems to catch up wasn't actually behind in the first place; their receptive vocabulary was proceeding apace, but they weren't talking much because they were shy or didn't have the motor control yet."   Her words conclude the chapter:  "It's important to characterize early language precocity for what it is: a head start, but far from a guarantee.  It's not lie the infancy period is the only critical period.  New skills are emerging in every period, and vocabulary development has to continually expand."

Plays Well with Others (Nurture Shock)

Before I get into this chapter, I am thinking about declaring this week Nurture Shock Week.  Seems like it has been forever since I first started writing about this, and I never intended for it to take this long.  So let's see if I can do it!  And now on to the next chapter . . .

Why modern involved parenting has failed to produce a generation of angels

So let me start this post by saying that when I first read this chapter (several months ago now), I remember thinking, "How am I going to blog about this?" There is an awful lot to cover, and this chapter really jumped around with different approaches, studies and theories.   It seemed pretty controversial to  me then, so let's see how I feel at the end of this post!

The first part of this chapter discussed children's aggression and the effects of media exposure.  I won't  go into the studies' details here because I would just end up re-writing the chapter, but the initial thought that the more violent TV kids watch, the more violent they will be just didn't work out here.  In fact, the more educational media the children watched, the more relationally aggressive they were.  (Relational aggression for preschool-age children was defined by ignoring a child who wanted to play or withdrawing friendship, i.e., "I won't be your friend anymore!")  After replicating the study several times with diverse children, the results were the same.  The researchers then studied the actual TV shows themselves and found that 66.7% of the prosocial shows studied contained insults.  Dr. Jamie Ostrov, one of the main researchers on this subject, theorizes that "many educational shows spend most of the half-hour establishing a conflict between characters and only a few minutes resolving the conflict.  Preschoolers have a difficult time being able to connect information at the end of the show to what happened earlier."

Can Self-Control Be Taught? Yes! according to Nurture Shock

Developers of a new kind of preschool keep losing their grant money—the students are so successful they’re no longer “at-risk enough” to warrant further study.  What’s their secret?

Well, this line immediately drew me in.  Having run many before- and after-school programs and an afterschool program for at-risk youth, I wanted to know more.  The curriculum that is mainly discussed in this chapter is called Tools of the Mind and is used in both preschool and Kindergarten classes.  According to the authors, it requires some training for teachers but doesn’t cost more to implement in a classroom.  The results listed in this chapter are astonishing!  I really would like to see one of these schools in action.  And if it truly works so well, why aren’t more schools using this?

Dr. Elena Bedrova and Dr. Deborah Leong developed the Tools techniques in the1990s and began the first real test in 1997 in the Denver public school system.   Nearly one-third to one-half of the students in each class were classified as limited-English speakers and were essentially a grade-level behind when starting Kindergarten.  At the end of the first year of the study, 97% of the Tools children scored proficient at their grade level.  In the traditional classrooms, the number was about 50%.

Nurture Shock is back! The Science of Teen Rebellion

Why, for adolescents, arguing with adults is a sign of respect, not disrespect--and arguing is constructive to the relationship, not destructive.

Wow!  When I first started to read this chapter, I thought, "Eh, I'll buzz through this one.  Not really relevant at this moment in my life."  Well, let me tell you!  There were a few eye-openers in this chapter!  I got a comment a few weeks ago from someone who read an old Nurture Shock post.   She said, "That's not true."  Well, of course, it's not true.   There are statistics and then there is real life and our perceptions of it.  Statistics and studies can prove whatever they want.  The idea here is to share some information and let you decide whether you agree or disagree and what you want to do about it.

The bottom line of this chapter really speaks to that.  It discusses the "dual narrative" of adolescence.  There is the research and stories that "prove" that adolescence is a time of angst, fighting and apathy.  And then there are the stories where more and more students are focused on success, volunteering and voting. 

"I suppose this split-personality is natural; both narratives exist because we need them to echo our experience at any particular time.  They compete, but they both persist.  We carry dual narratives whenever a phenomenon can't be characterized by a singular explanation.  We now have dual narratives not just of adolescence, but of the twenty-something years and of being unmarried at forty.  In the eyes of some, these reflect an unwillingness to accept reality; to others, they reflect the courage to refuse a compromised life. (Bold italics mine--and completely off topic--but whoa! Don't go there with me!  That's got to be another post!)

The Sibling Effect (Nurture Shock)

Freud was wrong.  Shakespeare was right.  Why siblings really fight.

Surprisingly, this was the shortest chapter in the book!  Yet my mind is swirling after reading this chapter!   How to organize my thoughts as I blog?  I've got my perspective as a mother with two siblings who are constantly fighting!  My thoughts as an administrator of child care programs for over 20 years!  A Masters Degree holder in Clinical Psychology with an emphasis on Advanced Family Therapy!  An oldest sibling myself!  AND a member of an extended family where, if the 5 siblings didn't go for it at least once or twice during a gathering, there was something seriously wrong!  I guess you'll have to sort it out yourself!

Bronson and Merryman begin the chapter with a discussion about all the studies over the years that have been done on only children, the premise being that only children are somehow different than children with siblings, especially when it comes to positive social skills.  Well, guess what!  Only children are notless skilled than children with siblings.  The question arises:  Could it be that as parents and scientists, we think that those never-ending interactions with sibs are positive, when in fact it could be just the opposite?

Studies show that siblings between the ages of three and seven fight/argue/torture their parents for approximately 10 minutes each hour.  According to one researcher, only about one of every 8 conflicts ends in a positive fashion.  The other seven interactions usually end with the siblings pulling away, usually at the expense of the youngest child. 

Another study watched how 4 year olds treated their siblings as opposed to their friends.  The results showed that the kids made 7x more controlling and negative comments to their siblings than to their friends.  A Scottish researcher believes that because siblings will always be there, there is no real incentive to act as nicely as they do to their friends.  She says, "Sibship is a relationship in which the boundaries of social interaction can be pushed to the limit.  Rage and irritation need not be suppressed, whilst politeness and toleration can be neglected."  (Italics mine!  Ringing any bells for any adult siblings out there???)