The first thing we always want to do as parents is jump in, right? It's like a deep rooted instinct propelling you forward. We don't even have to think, we just react. We are always there to save the day.
Except, sometimes, saving the day really isn't helping anything. Oh, when there's imminent danger or an injury, swooping in is important. I think that's why we have those instincts; we need to be able to not think and just react when we have to. Otherwise, we might panic. But, when it comes to most instances of parenting, sometimes we need to fight the instinct and just step back.
So often, we are so hell bent on protecting everything (our child, our floors, our walls, etc.) that we end up hindering our child's learning process. Children need to be allowed to explore and react. It may not always go well, but humans learn from experiences, both good and bad.
It's a scary thing; and there's also a fine line. How do we allow independence while keeping our children safe? And what's the benefit of independence? What's the benefit of letting children figure things out on their own?
The latter questions are easier to answer. Independence is crucial to learning, because humans learn through experience. A few humans can learn from others through rules or anecdotes, but most need hands-on experience of their own. And many need repetitive experiences in order to learn. So, if you want a child to learn, you have to give him the opportunity to explore...on his own.
And, so, how do we both keep our children safe while letting them explore. And again, we come to the moment of parental pause. It is a moment of vigilance because you are watching your child closely. It is a moment that many Montessori teachers have learned to capitalize upon. It is the moment of waiting and seeing.
When your child begins to interact with something that could go in the direction of problematic, you may wish to jump in before the problem. If that problem is imminent danger, severe injury, or death, then it of course makes sense to intervene before seeing what happens. However, if the possible problem may simply require a clean up, it's better to wait and see how things play out. If we are always jumping in to intervene, children can't learn to problem-solve or see consequences. Sometimes breaking something is a necessary conclusion for the child to make. Sometimes children need to try to work out a conflict themselves an learn to seek help for resolution rather than be given it before they ask.
With my little guy, I find myself waiting to see what he chooses to do with something before I take it away. Sometimes he chooses to use things appropriately, and other times it gets to a point where I have to take it away and distract him with something else. I am certain that letting him explore things and waiting to intervene teaches us both something. He learns new ways to interact with things and I learn about the choices and explorations he chooses to make. Taking a step back benefits both of us. And yes, sometimes I'm cleaning up a mess, or something breaks, or he gets soaked (he just loves the dog's water bowl), or I have to distract him when he's upset that I inevitably took something away. But, it's all just part of the process of learning. And, I think that's worth it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Right Shoes For Baby
I love fashion. I love shoes. Now show me some baby shoes, and I completely fall apart. But, when it comes to dressing my son's feet, I have to think about more than fashion.
During the early days of my son's life, I never put shoes on him. Baby's feet are just beginning to grow and shoes can restrict movement. Shoes are to protect the feet from the ground, so if you're child isn't touching the ground, it makes sense that he doesn't need shoes. Instead, we kept his little toes warm with socks and only when they felt cold to the touch.
Proper development of feet is just as important as any other aspect of a child's development. After a child is born, not all of the bones in his foot are fully developed. So, the same way that we protect the soft spot on the top of the head, we need to protect each little foot. In fact, the bones of the foot continue to develop for the first five years, so the issue of choosing shoes for developmental reasons rather than fashion remains important for a very long time.
Studies continue to show that the best thing for a child's foot development is being barefoot. Shoes inhibit how the foot moves, thus changing how the child moves. It's very much like a developmental domino effect. When a child is barefoot, his sense of touch and connection with what he walks on issues feedback that tells his body how to respond. This is how humans learn to walk, run, and move with proper coordination. While the shoe protects the foot from what's on the ground, it ultimately affects the information sent to the brain and can change a child's stride, gait, speed, and foot-fall. All of that affects his gross motor (large-muscle) coordination. So, it would make sense that while we want to protect the foot from damage, we want to protect the rest of the process as well.
Until the first steps are taken, children don't need traditional footwear. If their feet are cold, socks are all that's necessary. Loose socks are best, as any pressure on the toes is bad (this is important to remember about footie pajamas as well). When a child begins to crawl, barefoot is still the best route. My son used his toes to figure out how to crawl so it was essential that his foot not slip (the problem with socks). Unfortunately, as winter has set in, his feet get cold, so I decided to move him to soft soled shoes.
Soft soled shoes are essentially slippers for baby. Companies like Robeez (by Stride Rite) and Soft Star Shoes makes soft soled shoes that create the same environment as barefoot walking but keep the feet warm. For a little guy like mine who is pulling to stand, they work better than socks because they prevent slip. Unlike hard soled shoes, they allow the foot to move naturally.
Still, children whose feet are allowed to go barefoot and move naturally have lower incidences of many medical problems like flat feet. Even though soft soled shoes work at this stage, barefoot is always best. Really, at any stage. It's important to give children's feet that time to be free and natural during the day.
When walking starts, a thicker sole for on pavement is the next best step. In the house, barefoot or soft soled shoes are best. When looking at a thicker sole, it should be very flexible. The shoe should pretty much bend heel touching toe and bend at the center (not where the ball of the foot is). Arch support at this stage is bad, as are pointed toe or tapered toe shoes (broad toe is best). These guidelines hold true until a child is five years of age. But, at any age, being barefoot is still the best way to go.
As adults, we tend to get hung up on fashion or warmth when it comes to shoes. Or we think that shoes bring comfort. But, our feet and coordination have developed. For the developing child, the feedback and freedom of barefoot feet allow for the best development, and all those other factors are secondary. When it comes to choosing shoes, we should always be thinking about the shoe that supports the child's natural step rather than one that restricts or changes it.
During the early days of my son's life, I never put shoes on him. Baby's feet are just beginning to grow and shoes can restrict movement. Shoes are to protect the feet from the ground, so if you're child isn't touching the ground, it makes sense that he doesn't need shoes. Instead, we kept his little toes warm with socks and only when they felt cold to the touch.
Proper development of feet is just as important as any other aspect of a child's development. After a child is born, not all of the bones in his foot are fully developed. So, the same way that we protect the soft spot on the top of the head, we need to protect each little foot. In fact, the bones of the foot continue to develop for the first five years, so the issue of choosing shoes for developmental reasons rather than fashion remains important for a very long time.
Studies continue to show that the best thing for a child's foot development is being barefoot. Shoes inhibit how the foot moves, thus changing how the child moves. It's very much like a developmental domino effect. When a child is barefoot, his sense of touch and connection with what he walks on issues feedback that tells his body how to respond. This is how humans learn to walk, run, and move with proper coordination. While the shoe protects the foot from what's on the ground, it ultimately affects the information sent to the brain and can change a child's stride, gait, speed, and foot-fall. All of that affects his gross motor (large-muscle) coordination. So, it would make sense that while we want to protect the foot from damage, we want to protect the rest of the process as well.
Until the first steps are taken, children don't need traditional footwear. If their feet are cold, socks are all that's necessary. Loose socks are best, as any pressure on the toes is bad (this is important to remember about footie pajamas as well). When a child begins to crawl, barefoot is still the best route. My son used his toes to figure out how to crawl so it was essential that his foot not slip (the problem with socks). Unfortunately, as winter has set in, his feet get cold, so I decided to move him to soft soled shoes.
Soft soled shoes are essentially slippers for baby. Companies like Robeez (by Stride Rite) and Soft Star Shoes makes soft soled shoes that create the same environment as barefoot walking but keep the feet warm. For a little guy like mine who is pulling to stand, they work better than socks because they prevent slip. Unlike hard soled shoes, they allow the foot to move naturally.
Still, children whose feet are allowed to go barefoot and move naturally have lower incidences of many medical problems like flat feet. Even though soft soled shoes work at this stage, barefoot is always best. Really, at any stage. It's important to give children's feet that time to be free and natural during the day.
When walking starts, a thicker sole for on pavement is the next best step. In the house, barefoot or soft soled shoes are best. When looking at a thicker sole, it should be very flexible. The shoe should pretty much bend heel touching toe and bend at the center (not where the ball of the foot is). Arch support at this stage is bad, as are pointed toe or tapered toe shoes (broad toe is best). These guidelines hold true until a child is five years of age. But, at any age, being barefoot is still the best way to go.
As adults, we tend to get hung up on fashion or warmth when it comes to shoes. Or we think that shoes bring comfort. But, our feet and coordination have developed. For the developing child, the feedback and freedom of barefoot feet allow for the best development, and all those other factors are secondary. When it comes to choosing shoes, we should always be thinking about the shoe that supports the child's natural step rather than one that restricts or changes it.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Problem With "No!": Positive Communication
I want to start out by saying, this is not a post against the concept of "no." This post is about the word itself.
While there are many times that it is essential that we communicate to our children that they may not do or have something, there is an inherent problem with using the word "no" to make that communication. The problem with the word is that it doesn't have enough information; it's a set-up for failure. The problem with "no" is that it tells children what not to do instead of what they could do instead.
Imagine that you are an architect. You've been asked to design a building, so you do. Your client comes in, takes one look at it and says "no, that's not what I want; try again." He walks out the door. What information do you now have to do your job? Hardly any? All you know is that what you've chosen is wrong, but where do you go from there when the possibilities are endless?
It's the same with parenting. Consider yourself the client and your child the architect. You have to explain what it is that you want. But more that that, as you lay the boundaries of the world and society on your child (which is essential), you must help your child learn what he CAN do within those boundaries. If you don't tell him, he's gonna keep making it up, and he has no idea what's acceptable.
It's as simple as "please walk" instead of "don't run;" or "hold my hand in the street," instead of "don't run out into the street." Every negative can be turned into a positive if you just think about what you want your child to do instead of what you don't want him to do. Children often choose unacceptable behaviors because they just can't think of what to do instead. Or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. Repetition of the rules is far more effective than yelling negatives at your child.
The average one year old hears the word "no" more than 400 times a day. That's a lot of time that could be spent trying to help engage the child in something constructive. If your child has gotten to a place where you are now saying "no," then consider how he got there. If he's an infant, should you have been watching him and redirected him before he got there? Is it something you can simply redirect? If it's an older child, are you in a scenario where it might have helped to remind her of the rules before you got to this point? What can you ask her to do instead?
They key to this mindset is: what can you help your child figure out to do instead? When my son wants to go in the dog's water bowl, I put it on top of the counter before he gets it and give him something else to do (sometimes I put water in a different bowl he can play with). When he's got a dirty diaper and he wants to reach his hands down while I'm changing him, i move his hands up and say "hands up." Another example is if your child is running around the grocery store, you can enlist him to put the groceries in the cart or have him push the cart instead. Children need to be occupied, so take a role in helping your child occupy himself.
It's not that parents can never say "no." The reality is, we all get kind of hardwired that way. I try not to say it, but it just flies out of my mouth. So, now, instead of seeing it as a disciplinary tactic, I see it as a reminder to myself that I need to be parenting; I need to occupy my child, interact with my child, or teach my child something. For me, "no" is a reminder that the world is a big place and I've gotta help my little guy figure out what he CAN do.
While there are many times that it is essential that we communicate to our children that they may not do or have something, there is an inherent problem with using the word "no" to make that communication. The problem with the word is that it doesn't have enough information; it's a set-up for failure. The problem with "no" is that it tells children what not to do instead of what they could do instead.
Imagine that you are an architect. You've been asked to design a building, so you do. Your client comes in, takes one look at it and says "no, that's not what I want; try again." He walks out the door. What information do you now have to do your job? Hardly any? All you know is that what you've chosen is wrong, but where do you go from there when the possibilities are endless?
It's the same with parenting. Consider yourself the client and your child the architect. You have to explain what it is that you want. But more that that, as you lay the boundaries of the world and society on your child (which is essential), you must help your child learn what he CAN do within those boundaries. If you don't tell him, he's gonna keep making it up, and he has no idea what's acceptable.
It's as simple as "please walk" instead of "don't run;" or "hold my hand in the street," instead of "don't run out into the street." Every negative can be turned into a positive if you just think about what you want your child to do instead of what you don't want him to do. Children often choose unacceptable behaviors because they just can't think of what to do instead. Or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. Repetition of the rules is far more effective than yelling negatives at your child.
The average one year old hears the word "no" more than 400 times a day. That's a lot of time that could be spent trying to help engage the child in something constructive. If your child has gotten to a place where you are now saying "no," then consider how he got there. If he's an infant, should you have been watching him and redirected him before he got there? Is it something you can simply redirect? If it's an older child, are you in a scenario where it might have helped to remind her of the rules before you got to this point? What can you ask her to do instead?
They key to this mindset is: what can you help your child figure out to do instead? When my son wants to go in the dog's water bowl, I put it on top of the counter before he gets it and give him something else to do (sometimes I put water in a different bowl he can play with). When he's got a dirty diaper and he wants to reach his hands down while I'm changing him, i move his hands up and say "hands up." Another example is if your child is running around the grocery store, you can enlist him to put the groceries in the cart or have him push the cart instead. Children need to be occupied, so take a role in helping your child occupy himself.
It's not that parents can never say "no." The reality is, we all get kind of hardwired that way. I try not to say it, but it just flies out of my mouth. So, now, instead of seeing it as a disciplinary tactic, I see it as a reminder to myself that I need to be parenting; I need to occupy my child, interact with my child, or teach my child something. For me, "no" is a reminder that the world is a big place and I've gotta help my little guy figure out what he CAN do.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Thank You Baby-Led Weaning: An Update
In my previous post, Starting Solids, I admit that I had my concerns with Baby-Led Weaning when we started. Specifically, I was terrified that trial and error could end up in choking. Every time my little guy gagged, my husband and I look terrified.
Now, as my son is 8 1/2 months old, I'm so glad we stuck it out; my fears are gone. I realized this today when I watched my son eat a piece of sweet potato. Holding large enough of a slice to hold in his hand and still have enough sticking out of his hand to bite on, he leaned forward and took a small bite. Success, I thought, he's getting it!
Thinking back on the past few weeks of eating, he seems to have figured many thing out. He can eat chicken and turkey in small bites, even though he's only just now getting his first tooth. He's learned to bite down with his gums and separate off a piece. Those things he needs help getting pieces off, we let him try chewing on it but then break off pieces and feed them to him with our fingers (small bits of pork or fish). He hasn't mastered the pincer grip, so he still needs assistance food like fish that can't be held in large pieces.
He still gags, though. I'm seeing that it's part of the learning process. I figure it's better he gags now while his gag reflex is further up in his mouth. It's still scary, but I know that he's learning and it reminds me to stay vigilant. I'll admit, if I seem him pull off too big a piece, I've been known to go fish it out, but now that he understands chewing, there's far less of that.
A lot of this process is about exploration. Since his main diet is breastfeeding, I never worry about how much he eats. I focus on variety and I try to incorporate foods with iron since I've chosen not to given him a supplement. Sometimes (many times), he just smears the food around or tosses it to the dog. But, sometimes, he discovers something he loves. Yes to turkey. No to mango. I respect his desire to try as much as I respect when he pushes something away and says no.
Onward with the exploration as we move towards independence! Thank you baby-led weaning for making food much less complicated.
Now, as my son is 8 1/2 months old, I'm so glad we stuck it out; my fears are gone. I realized this today when I watched my son eat a piece of sweet potato. Holding large enough of a slice to hold in his hand and still have enough sticking out of his hand to bite on, he leaned forward and took a small bite. Success, I thought, he's getting it!
Thinking back on the past few weeks of eating, he seems to have figured many thing out. He can eat chicken and turkey in small bites, even though he's only just now getting his first tooth. He's learned to bite down with his gums and separate off a piece. Those things he needs help getting pieces off, we let him try chewing on it but then break off pieces and feed them to him with our fingers (small bits of pork or fish). He hasn't mastered the pincer grip, so he still needs assistance food like fish that can't be held in large pieces.
He still gags, though. I'm seeing that it's part of the learning process. I figure it's better he gags now while his gag reflex is further up in his mouth. It's still scary, but I know that he's learning and it reminds me to stay vigilant. I'll admit, if I seem him pull off too big a piece, I've been known to go fish it out, but now that he understands chewing, there's far less of that.
A lot of this process is about exploration. Since his main diet is breastfeeding, I never worry about how much he eats. I focus on variety and I try to incorporate foods with iron since I've chosen not to given him a supplement. Sometimes (many times), he just smears the food around or tosses it to the dog. But, sometimes, he discovers something he loves. Yes to turkey. No to mango. I respect his desire to try as much as I respect when he pushes something away and says no.
Onward with the exploration as we move towards independence! Thank you baby-led weaning for making food much less complicated.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
This Too Shall Pass: A Mommy Mantra
That's exactly what it is: my mommy mantra. This too shall pass. The reality is, motherhood is hard. Don't get me wrong. It's enriching, amazing, thrilling, and beautiful. But it's also hard.
For a while there, the Mommy is everything. Especially if you are breastfeeding, because then you are a food source and pacifier. And then attachment comes, and it's all-mommy-all-the-time for many of us. It's hard not to lose yourself. There's the gamut of developmental phases and mother-child experiences: breastfeeding, attachment, colic, teething, diapering, etc. We all know that list can go on and on. I doubt there is not one of us that hasn't broken down, wondering what to do and for how much longer (if you haven't, how lucky you are!). The sleep deprivation alone will get you.
I had my moments in the beginning where I wondered, how much more?? Breastfeeding pain in the beginning. Colicky crying and my sons constant need for movement was challenging, to say the least. People would tell me: "it'll get better." I remember feeling like better was an eternity away.
But, it wasn't. It did get better. It passed. It always does. They go through phases and they grow up fast. And while one phase inevitably leads to another that has it's own challenges, it helps me most to remember, especially when the only way out is through: this too shall pass. Then you realize, this little person is creating himself in front of your eyes, and that's a complicated, challenging thing. And it's amazing. And it's worth all of it.
For a while there, the Mommy is everything. Especially if you are breastfeeding, because then you are a food source and pacifier. And then attachment comes, and it's all-mommy-all-the-time for many of us. It's hard not to lose yourself. There's the gamut of developmental phases and mother-child experiences: breastfeeding, attachment, colic, teething, diapering, etc. We all know that list can go on and on. I doubt there is not one of us that hasn't broken down, wondering what to do and for how much longer (if you haven't, how lucky you are!). The sleep deprivation alone will get you.
I had my moments in the beginning where I wondered, how much more?? Breastfeeding pain in the beginning. Colicky crying and my sons constant need for movement was challenging, to say the least. People would tell me: "it'll get better." I remember feeling like better was an eternity away.
But, it wasn't. It did get better. It passed. It always does. They go through phases and they grow up fast. And while one phase inevitably leads to another that has it's own challenges, it helps me most to remember, especially when the only way out is through: this too shall pass. Then you realize, this little person is creating himself in front of your eyes, and that's a complicated, challenging thing. And it's amazing. And it's worth all of it.
We Aren't Born With Empathy
I've been noticing that when I yawn, my eight month old son does not yawn in response. I tested it. I yawned over and over, but nothing. Even writing this I've yawned (have you yawned yet?), but nothing from my little guy. And so, it got me thinking about empathy.
I wasn't sure how I knew yawning was related to empathy so I went and did a little research to confirm. We don't really know why people yawn, other than scientists agree that it is a form of reflex on the part of the respiratory system. It is not something that we control. But, what we do know is that the desire to yawn when others do is triggered by empathetic mechanisms. Yawning, in general, is involuntary, but yawning when others yawn is empathy.
This post isn't about yawning though. Yawning only triggered my realization. What I really began to think about: empathy. And my son doesn't have a lick of it.
He's not alone. People just aren't born with it. We're all little mini sociopaths when we start out, focused on our selves and having little regard of others. The difference between babies and sociopaths, however, is that babies just really haven't developed the concept of others just yet. They have an inherent need to focus on themselves given all that they have to learn. And while we are born with specific temperaments and genetics, we are born as social blank slates. Empathy has to be developed.
While babies have to develop empathy, the foundation for it exists as they grow. They develop abilities that put them on the path to empathy. They attain these foundational abilities without teaching, but through social interaction. First, to develop empathy, babies must develop a sense that other people exist and also have emotions, just as they do. They learn to recognize facial expressions and associate emotions with those expressions. They first learn that everyone is the same as them.
But, then, babies must come to the realization that these other people have feelings that can be different from theirs. Only then can they begin to develop empathetic responses. But this takes quite a bit of time. A two month old may respond to a smile, but that isn't empathy, it's more of an understanding, a knowledge of emotions that is developing. I read a post once where a mother reported that her nine month old would cry out and get upset when she screamed in pain. She wondered if it was empathy, but I think it was more likely her child getting upset at a sudden loud noise. My son gets very upset when I sneeze or cough, but I think he's more upset at the noise than concerned for my health. Children respond to emotions at a very young age, but the response is not empathy. Empathy, rather, is the ability to understand someone else's emotions and, in a sense, vicariously experience them yourself.
It's a process that comes with understanding the social nature of people and it takes time. A friend of mine once expressed to me her frustration when her daughter (barely two years of age) hits another child and the other child's parent reacts angrily, taking their child away. I can understand her frustration.
Empathy is essential to the concept of hitting. We don't hit because we don't want to hurt others. Empathy allows us to feel another person's pain and ultimately choose not to inflict it. People (babies and adults alike) who hit lack a certain empathy for the person they are hitting. With young children, this is because they haven't developed it (and I'd argue those adults failed to develop empathy properly as well). With very young children, couple lack of empathy with a lack of impulse control and a limited ability to communicate (which also take time to develop) and it's not surprising that they hit when frustrated or upset. It's something to remember before choosing to punish your own child or express anger toward's someone else's.
I'm not saying that hitting is excused by this lack of empathy development. What I am saying is that when we consider children's behaviors, we must consider where they are developmentally. It is our job to aid in this development. It is our job to assist in the development of empathy and social awareness, as well as provide examples of how to communicate and resolve problems.
Punishment is never an effective route for combatting these kinds of behaviors. For starters, very young children fail to understand their social interactions. The nine month old that hit my son a few months back was not trying to hurt him because in no way could she understand that he would be caused pain. A two year old is not in much different of a boat, although is getting closer to empathetic responses. So the reaction must be in the form of explanation. First, we recognize the child's problem or frustration and give them the necessary language for the response (eg. give me that toy back, please). We can also consequence the action. Perhaps have the child return the toy and explain that hitting hurts and we use our words.
If your child cannot stop hitting, removal from the situation with the statement "you may not play if you are going to hit and hurt people" may become necessary. This final consequence is for the sake of safety and teaching social parameters. But it must come along with all the other explanations. The problem with punishment rather than education is that it teaches children to omit a behavior out of fear of parental reaction rather than develop a social, empathetic conscience. The latter is far more beneficial to the child and society.
Your child may not understand everything you say, but over time, the message will sink in. It is the combination of the natural social development coupled with social education from the parent that allows a child to develop empathy and respond accordingly. And it's a process during which a child may not always get it right.
So, I'm aware that my little guy has no empathy. And I'm aware that the development of everything from gentle touch to sharing to playing with others to problem solving will require my assistance. I'm up for the challenge, but it reminds me of one more thing. Because I am able and have developed the ability, I must empathize with him and all children through these phases of their development.
I wasn't sure how I knew yawning was related to empathy so I went and did a little research to confirm. We don't really know why people yawn, other than scientists agree that it is a form of reflex on the part of the respiratory system. It is not something that we control. But, what we do know is that the desire to yawn when others do is triggered by empathetic mechanisms. Yawning, in general, is involuntary, but yawning when others yawn is empathy.
This post isn't about yawning though. Yawning only triggered my realization. What I really began to think about: empathy. And my son doesn't have a lick of it.
He's not alone. People just aren't born with it. We're all little mini sociopaths when we start out, focused on our selves and having little regard of others. The difference between babies and sociopaths, however, is that babies just really haven't developed the concept of others just yet. They have an inherent need to focus on themselves given all that they have to learn. And while we are born with specific temperaments and genetics, we are born as social blank slates. Empathy has to be developed.
While babies have to develop empathy, the foundation for it exists as they grow. They develop abilities that put them on the path to empathy. They attain these foundational abilities without teaching, but through social interaction. First, to develop empathy, babies must develop a sense that other people exist and also have emotions, just as they do. They learn to recognize facial expressions and associate emotions with those expressions. They first learn that everyone is the same as them.
But, then, babies must come to the realization that these other people have feelings that can be different from theirs. Only then can they begin to develop empathetic responses. But this takes quite a bit of time. A two month old may respond to a smile, but that isn't empathy, it's more of an understanding, a knowledge of emotions that is developing. I read a post once where a mother reported that her nine month old would cry out and get upset when she screamed in pain. She wondered if it was empathy, but I think it was more likely her child getting upset at a sudden loud noise. My son gets very upset when I sneeze or cough, but I think he's more upset at the noise than concerned for my health. Children respond to emotions at a very young age, but the response is not empathy. Empathy, rather, is the ability to understand someone else's emotions and, in a sense, vicariously experience them yourself.
It's a process that comes with understanding the social nature of people and it takes time. A friend of mine once expressed to me her frustration when her daughter (barely two years of age) hits another child and the other child's parent reacts angrily, taking their child away. I can understand her frustration.
Empathy is essential to the concept of hitting. We don't hit because we don't want to hurt others. Empathy allows us to feel another person's pain and ultimately choose not to inflict it. People (babies and adults alike) who hit lack a certain empathy for the person they are hitting. With young children, this is because they haven't developed it (and I'd argue those adults failed to develop empathy properly as well). With very young children, couple lack of empathy with a lack of impulse control and a limited ability to communicate (which also take time to develop) and it's not surprising that they hit when frustrated or upset. It's something to remember before choosing to punish your own child or express anger toward's someone else's.
I'm not saying that hitting is excused by this lack of empathy development. What I am saying is that when we consider children's behaviors, we must consider where they are developmentally. It is our job to aid in this development. It is our job to assist in the development of empathy and social awareness, as well as provide examples of how to communicate and resolve problems.
Punishment is never an effective route for combatting these kinds of behaviors. For starters, very young children fail to understand their social interactions. The nine month old that hit my son a few months back was not trying to hurt him because in no way could she understand that he would be caused pain. A two year old is not in much different of a boat, although is getting closer to empathetic responses. So the reaction must be in the form of explanation. First, we recognize the child's problem or frustration and give them the necessary language for the response (eg. give me that toy back, please). We can also consequence the action. Perhaps have the child return the toy and explain that hitting hurts and we use our words.
If your child cannot stop hitting, removal from the situation with the statement "you may not play if you are going to hit and hurt people" may become necessary. This final consequence is for the sake of safety and teaching social parameters. But it must come along with all the other explanations. The problem with punishment rather than education is that it teaches children to omit a behavior out of fear of parental reaction rather than develop a social, empathetic conscience. The latter is far more beneficial to the child and society.
Your child may not understand everything you say, but over time, the message will sink in. It is the combination of the natural social development coupled with social education from the parent that allows a child to develop empathy and respond accordingly. And it's a process during which a child may not always get it right.
So, I'm aware that my little guy has no empathy. And I'm aware that the development of everything from gentle touch to sharing to playing with others to problem solving will require my assistance. I'm up for the challenge, but it reminds me of one more thing. Because I am able and have developed the ability, I must empathize with him and all children through these phases of their development.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Pizza? A Vegetable? Really, Congress?
I must say, I was extremely disappointed by what I learned this morning. I'm sure it's everywhere now, all over blogs and the news, but if you haven't heard, Congress has declared pizza a vegetable. More specifically, they are allowing the two tablespoons of tomato paste smeared on a pizza to be constituted as a vegetable, allowing it to be counted as a serving of vegetable in a school lunch.
I was really impressed when Jamie Oliver took on the public school lunches, trying to convince Americans that we need to be encouraging our children to eat healthier. I remember watching his television program, Food Revolution, in which he challenged the notion that children will not eat vegetables. Disturbed by the amount of french fries being consumed at a high school, Jamie decided to change things up by making a wonderful veggie stir fry to serve for school lunch that day. I was shocked along with him when the food services director determined he did not have enough vegetables (the required one and a half cups serving) to fit requirements and decided to put french fries back on the menu to fix the situation. French fries are a vegetable??
Ok, I get that potatoes fall under the category of vegetable, but let's get real here. School food directors are considering a cup of french fries to be of more nutritional value than a healthy veggie stir fry based on volume? Are we even using our brains anymore? I thought things couldn't get worse, until the United States Congress decided that pizza is now a vegetable! Never mind that a tomato is technically a fruit.
Jamie Oliver and the Obama Administration have been working hard to change the quality of the school lunch. No, not by bringing in high end food. They aren't even trying to make it organic. It's really just about getting kids to eat more vegetables and less french fries. Simple. Should we really be feeding our kids nothing but chicken nuggets, pizza, french fries, and tacos? The USDA no longer thinks so. They wanted to make a real change in the direction the Obama Administration has been pushing: limiting the amount of starchy vegetables and tomato paste in children's lunches and branching out to other vegetables. The USDA's proposal would have limited starchy vegetable options to one cup per week for students and required that an food item be required to have one half a cup of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable.
Congress' response? That would just be too taxing on school systems' budgets. Instead, we should continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable serving, thus allowing the food industry to market frozen pizza as a vegetable. In fact, they scrapped the whole starchy vegetable (which includes peas and carrots but was targeted at french fries which many schools serve daily) and tomato paste plan from the USDA's proposal to increase the health of school lunches. Additionally, Congress' provisions will require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines and require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. Republican House Appropriations Committee members argued that these restrictions were overly burdensome on local school districts.
At the end of the day, I know this all has to do with lobbying and money. These issues always have. Our children's futures always have, whether it be about music education, art education, or their health. American policy continually seems to value the dollar over health and development. I've watched programs about families desperate to save the almighty dollar so they eat burger king every week and never consider the impact of that on their health...which will one day affect their dollars. It doesn't matter how much information you spread about the dangers of fast food, the dollar is always more important. It doesn't matter how much people want regulation, the dollar always wins out.
My sister always says that the only way to change, given this mentality, is to fight the dollar with the dollar. It's our choices as consumers that affect the outcome. If we don't buy it, they won't sell it. I think that if we, as parents, want change, then we have to do it by not buying school lunches. If what they care about is the dollar, then we have to show our concerns with the dollar.
I don't know how much that will really help, though, considering most of us that care about this stuff probably don't let our kids eat school lunches already. But maybe that's not true...maybe there are plenty of parents out there who didn't know how to affect a change, so they haven't pulled their dollars. Then, again, it's not really a fair fight, considering the government subsidizes the lunch programs and there are plenty of unfortunate children who get their main meals (and need to) from these school funded food programs.
We have to start caring about food in this country: where it comes from, how we get it, and what we are eating. I could sit here and list many issues I have with the food industry and regulations, but sadly, we're not even talking about all those things when it comes to school lunches. All we are talking about is a balanced diet, and even that can't get passed.
So, I'm feeling sad for the state of American health today. And I don't know how teachers can continue to teach nutrition and standards (kids are always learning about the food pyramid) when that information is being undermined under their very own roofs. How can we have a healthy population if we aren't teaching our kids to eat healthy? And mark my words, an unhealthy population will affect the almighty dollar in more ways than Congress can imagine. But then, Congress has never had the foresight to be preventative.
So, you're looking at one parent who will be helping her child pack his lunch when the day comes. But, then again, she'll be sending him and that lunch to a Montessori school. That's where I'm putting my dollars.
I was really impressed when Jamie Oliver took on the public school lunches, trying to convince Americans that we need to be encouraging our children to eat healthier. I remember watching his television program, Food Revolution, in which he challenged the notion that children will not eat vegetables. Disturbed by the amount of french fries being consumed at a high school, Jamie decided to change things up by making a wonderful veggie stir fry to serve for school lunch that day. I was shocked along with him when the food services director determined he did not have enough vegetables (the required one and a half cups serving) to fit requirements and decided to put french fries back on the menu to fix the situation. French fries are a vegetable??
Ok, I get that potatoes fall under the category of vegetable, but let's get real here. School food directors are considering a cup of french fries to be of more nutritional value than a healthy veggie stir fry based on volume? Are we even using our brains anymore? I thought things couldn't get worse, until the United States Congress decided that pizza is now a vegetable! Never mind that a tomato is technically a fruit.
Jamie Oliver and the Obama Administration have been working hard to change the quality of the school lunch. No, not by bringing in high end food. They aren't even trying to make it organic. It's really just about getting kids to eat more vegetables and less french fries. Simple. Should we really be feeding our kids nothing but chicken nuggets, pizza, french fries, and tacos? The USDA no longer thinks so. They wanted to make a real change in the direction the Obama Administration has been pushing: limiting the amount of starchy vegetables and tomato paste in children's lunches and branching out to other vegetables. The USDA's proposal would have limited starchy vegetable options to one cup per week for students and required that an food item be required to have one half a cup of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable.
Congress' response? That would just be too taxing on school systems' budgets. Instead, we should continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable serving, thus allowing the food industry to market frozen pizza as a vegetable. In fact, they scrapped the whole starchy vegetable (which includes peas and carrots but was targeted at french fries which many schools serve daily) and tomato paste plan from the USDA's proposal to increase the health of school lunches. Additionally, Congress' provisions will require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines and require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. Republican House Appropriations Committee members argued that these restrictions were overly burdensome on local school districts.
At the end of the day, I know this all has to do with lobbying and money. These issues always have. Our children's futures always have, whether it be about music education, art education, or their health. American policy continually seems to value the dollar over health and development. I've watched programs about families desperate to save the almighty dollar so they eat burger king every week and never consider the impact of that on their health...which will one day affect their dollars. It doesn't matter how much information you spread about the dangers of fast food, the dollar is always more important. It doesn't matter how much people want regulation, the dollar always wins out.
My sister always says that the only way to change, given this mentality, is to fight the dollar with the dollar. It's our choices as consumers that affect the outcome. If we don't buy it, they won't sell it. I think that if we, as parents, want change, then we have to do it by not buying school lunches. If what they care about is the dollar, then we have to show our concerns with the dollar.
I don't know how much that will really help, though, considering most of us that care about this stuff probably don't let our kids eat school lunches already. But maybe that's not true...maybe there are plenty of parents out there who didn't know how to affect a change, so they haven't pulled their dollars. Then, again, it's not really a fair fight, considering the government subsidizes the lunch programs and there are plenty of unfortunate children who get their main meals (and need to) from these school funded food programs.
We have to start caring about food in this country: where it comes from, how we get it, and what we are eating. I could sit here and list many issues I have with the food industry and regulations, but sadly, we're not even talking about all those things when it comes to school lunches. All we are talking about is a balanced diet, and even that can't get passed.
So, I'm feeling sad for the state of American health today. And I don't know how teachers can continue to teach nutrition and standards (kids are always learning about the food pyramid) when that information is being undermined under their very own roofs. How can we have a healthy population if we aren't teaching our kids to eat healthy? And mark my words, an unhealthy population will affect the almighty dollar in more ways than Congress can imagine. But then, Congress has never had the foresight to be preventative.
So, you're looking at one parent who will be helping her child pack his lunch when the day comes. But, then again, she'll be sending him and that lunch to a Montessori school. That's where I'm putting my dollars.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
What is Santa Really Telling Our Kids?
As I contemplated fantasy in my last post, Montessori, Fantasy, Reality, and The Younger Child, I became continually aware of the topic and its relevance with the upcoming holiday season: my son's first Christmas. When it comes to fantasy and fairy tale, I believe that it is important to help children become clear on what is real and not real, while still enjoying the wonderful enrichment of these stories. If one of the goals we have for our children is honesty, then it is equally important that we always be honest with them.
So then, what do we do about Santa?
At first, I thought, Santa is a lie. While my son has no idea this current holiday of what I am talking about, I figure now is the time to set the tone. But, for the sake of honesty, do I want to tell my child that Santa doesn't exist? Or, if I do tell him and then he one day learns the truth, do I want him to think that I am a liar?
In the end, I decided that with those things that are about faith and a little bit of magic, I think it's okay to let our children believe in what may or may not be real. I don't think it really is a lie. Because, even though I know now that there is no man who flies around on roof tops and gives gifts to all the children of the world, I still very much hope to believe that the spirit of what he represents is a very real thing and will always exist. He is a personification of the idea of giving, and that idea will always be real. If it is something that, even as an adult, you still hold onto, then it is just as important for your little one to be a part of it. Because, at the end of the day, don't we all believe in Santa? If Santa and his magic are those of goodness and joy, then can they damage a child? How many of us adults still hold onto their existence and wish it to be true?
But, I will be careful. I will focus on the beauty of what Santa represents rather than all the little details that have turned him into a product mover and behavior monitor. I think to tell our children that if they are bad they won't get a gift is just a set-up for all sorts of unfortunate priorities. Children's behavior needs to be a reflection of self-discipline. They should be following rules because they learn to believe those rules are important and need to be there, not because some arbitrary person won't give them something (which no parent follows through with anyways). Santa shouldn't exist so that parents have a "bad-cop" for a month. And the point of Santa shouldn't be getting; the point of Santa should be giving. If anything, I wish that the Santa story would change from giving children gifts who are good, to giving to children who give to others. Pay it forward so to speak. And if my son one day asks me about these parts of the Santa story that I have not shared with him, I will tell him very honestly that, as with all stories of things wonderful, sometimes people get confused and change the story or add to it in ways that are not about the true spirit of the story.
So, I will teach my child about the original and very real St. Nicholas who taught others how to give. And I will use the beauty of Santa to teach my child about giving. Because that fantasy and that magic is worth passing on. I will show him ways to give during the holiday season, so that he will also be a part of that magic. And yes, we will still make cookies for santa, but he will get to help me make them, and learn and share in that experience as well.
Still, what is important is the child's trust. If we tell the child something unreal, will he ever trust us with what is real? If we tell our children stories of magic, will they believe us when they learn that what we've told them may not exist? But then, I thought about religion and the belief in a God. And I thought, sometimes faith is based on the not knowing. Sometimes, what it's really about, is what that thing represents. And so, as we grow up and learn that some of the details may be imaginative, the real details, the spirit of it all, are as tangible as the day we wrote our first letter to Santa.
In our house, we believe.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Montessori, Fantasy, Reality, and the Younger Child
Recently, I've been thinking a lot about fantasy in the lives of children. As a Montessorian, I had to take a deep look at what Dr. Montessori wrote on fantasy. But, as I went back through her books and Internet pieces on what others have written about it, I came to a dilemma I don't often come to when contemplating Dr. Montessori's work. How much do I really agree with her on this point?
I wanted to start by outlining her take on fantasy with her own words. However, even though I own seven books written by Dr. Montessori, I could find very little on the subject. I believe she has talked extensively on the subject, but that information is lacking from my library of her major works. She does touch on the subject in the Absorbent Mind by defining spending too much time in the world of fantasy as a disorder in the child, specifically, the "child's difficulty, or inability, to concentrate his attention on real objects" and instead turning everything into fantasy. She felt that this constant disconnection from reality hindered the spiritual life rather than fostered it for, she believed, "the spiritual life is really built upon the fundamental basis of a unified personality, well attuned to the outer world." "The wandering mind that breaks away from reality, breaks away from...healthy normality," she wrote, and "attention to real things, with all the future applications that derive from this, become impossible."
Many people who have not deeply studied the Montessori philosophy, or (in my opinion) misinterpret her, believe that Dr. Montessori was against imagination. But, what she was really saying is that while we all see and observe that imagination is the natural inclination of the child, it stems from what is real. Giving the child something unreal and made up is not his imagination or creativity, but someone else's. In that fact, it thus has less value to the child than had he used his own creativity and imagined something. This is ultimately the difference between imagination and fantasy. To stimulate the child's imagination, therefore, you must give him real things and a real understanding of the world from which he can extrapolate and use creatively. While the child is drawn to fantasy, it is the knowledge from the real world that can enrich his ability to imagine and create.
Dr. Montessori wrote: "Yet, when all are agreed that the child loves to imagine, why do we give him only fairy tales and toys on which to practice this gift? If a child can imagine a fairy and fairyland, it will not be difficult for him to imagine America. Instead of hearing it referred to vaguely in conversation, he can help to clarify his own ideas of it by looking at the globe on which it is shown." In To Educate The Human Potential she wrote: "Educationalists in general agree that imagination is important, but the would have it cultivated as separate from intelligence, just as they would separate the latter from the activity of the hand. They are vivisectionsists of the human personality. In the school they want children to learn dry facts of reality, while their imagination is cultivated by fairy tales, concerned with a world that is certainly full of marvels, but not the world around them in which they live. Certainly these tales have impressive factors which move the childish mind to pity and horror, for they are full of woe and tragedy, of children who are starved, ill-treated, abandoned, and betrayed. Just as adults find pleasure in tragic drama and literature, these tales of goblins and monsters give pleasure and stir the child’s imagination, but they have no connection with reality."
In my opinion, part of what I think Dr. Montessori was critiquing adults' misunderstanding of the child, always trying to occupy his time with fake things or toys that serve the purpose of making the child "busy" so that he does not interfere with adult things. Sometimes this stems from not understanding what the child really needs or is capable of, and sometime it stems from sheer self-absorption (we don't want to clean something up, we don't want to include the child who will take too long, we want it done perfectly). For example, instead of letting a child explore the things we have in the kitchen or let them assist us in preparing dinner, we buy them plastic kitchens and tell them to "play." This act of play is devoid in meaning because it robs the child of the ability to learn something or develop skills by working with real objects.
While wooden or fabric toys (I hate plastic ones) that focus a child's grasping or sensorial skills can be good, it is just as important to let our children explore what is real. Now that he has developed the powers of grasping and holding, I let my son entertain himself with real objects to explore: a spoon from the kitchen, a brush, a sock, etc. Rather than buy him a toy piano with light up noises, we let him explore a real piano. When he showed fascination in his father's guitar but my husband was worried about him damaging it, we bought him a cheap Ukelele to manipulate until he's old enough to respect the guitar (rather than a fake plastic toy one). I try to find ways to involve him in the world rather than simply occupy him. I think it is most important for our children to explore, to enter the world of real things and make genuine discoveries that will have value to them.
The same goes for the things we tell our children. What is real is what fuels the imagination. Before the age of five, children do not have a clear understanding about the concept of real and unreal, things that are untrue and fantastical. It's important to think of that when we consider what we show our children in movies or what stories we tell them. When Dr. Montessori talked about fairy-tales, I don't think she was thinking of a full ban on them. Maybe she was, but I cannot ask her, so I must go with my instincts. Fairy-tales have their place as representations of culture; they are full of thoughts on morality, history, and mystery. But, in the same breath, to the very young child, they can be danger. Dr. Montessori also said, in The Advanced Montessori Method: "But how can the imagination of children be developed by what is, on the contrary, the fruit of our imagination? It is we who imagine, not they; they believe, they do not imagine. Credulity is, indeed, a characteristic of immature minds which lack experience and knowledge of realities, and are as yet devoid of that intelligence which distinguishes the true from the false, the beautiful from the ugly, and the possible from the impossible." She makes a good point to all of those who think that showing a child fantasy teaches him to use his imagination. These stories are the products of an adult's imagination. They do not teach the child how to imagine, but instead fill his stories with unreal ideas that stem from the minds of others.
I'm not saying that fantasy has no place in a child's life. I don't think Dr. Montessori was either. I think the point is that we need to be very careful with fantasy, and we need to be realistic when we think about a child's needs with regard to it. Before we expose our children to things they may not understand, we need to remember that they might take what is unreal as real. This is of importance when you think about exposing a child to Star Wars or you tell him there are monsters. So many times, as a teacher, I saw children on the playground attacking each other with light sabers without any real understanding of the implications of such a thing. When children don't understand what is real and it enters into their play, they can become desensitized to things like violence without every full understanding what it means. They can also develop very real fears because they don't have the ability to separate the unreal from the real. How many of us have seen a child terrified of something that made no sense...and how often has that stemmed from fantastical stories he may have heard?
Some people might argue with me here that the value of a fairytale likes within its moral structure, its tale of the human condition or human social structure. Fairytales can tell us how things should be or make us think about the nature of good and evil. But, fairytales were not written for young children. Because, children below a certain age do not understand the complexities of these ideas. As they turn five or six and their ability to understand more abstract social concepts develops, then these moral tales have some value. Before this age, however, children are too concrete to see anything more than the superficial storyline.
I think, when it comes to fantasy, we must strike a balance with our young children under the age of five. I think that when we hope to occupy them, we should look to engage them in what is real, because that is what will benefit them the most. Helping them learn about the world and what exists is always more valuable than what doesn't exist. At the same time, however, it is an enriching experience to expose children to stories that are timeless and classic to the culture in which we live. But, we should be careful and think about what those stories tell our children. We should not hesitate to talk to them about the story and let them know that it is not real. When we read a story about a talking cow, it is important to point out to the child that cows don't talk and so that this story is pretend. We should be careful before we share ideas with young children that may cause them fear because they cannot detach the fantasy from the reality. I don't think that means we should sugarcoat everything. Rather, we should be honest about what is fantasy and what is not. What behaviors are acceptable in the stories we see, and what are not. What is possible in the real world, and what is not. We should talk about the ideas brought up by the story with regard to what is real and what is not.
Fantasy has it's place, but we should remember that, with all things, moderation is key. Before we come to the belief that children should live in an endless world of fairytale and make believe, we should consider what they are missing by not being in the real world, developing real skills, and interacting with real things. And when we do engage the world of fantasy, we should remember that the young child takes everything as fact, so it is our job to help them differentiate.
I wanted to start by outlining her take on fantasy with her own words. However, even though I own seven books written by Dr. Montessori, I could find very little on the subject. I believe she has talked extensively on the subject, but that information is lacking from my library of her major works. She does touch on the subject in the Absorbent Mind by defining spending too much time in the world of fantasy as a disorder in the child, specifically, the "child's difficulty, or inability, to concentrate his attention on real objects" and instead turning everything into fantasy. She felt that this constant disconnection from reality hindered the spiritual life rather than fostered it for, she believed, "the spiritual life is really built upon the fundamental basis of a unified personality, well attuned to the outer world." "The wandering mind that breaks away from reality, breaks away from...healthy normality," she wrote, and "attention to real things, with all the future applications that derive from this, become impossible."
Many people who have not deeply studied the Montessori philosophy, or (in my opinion) misinterpret her, believe that Dr. Montessori was against imagination. But, what she was really saying is that while we all see and observe that imagination is the natural inclination of the child, it stems from what is real. Giving the child something unreal and made up is not his imagination or creativity, but someone else's. In that fact, it thus has less value to the child than had he used his own creativity and imagined something. This is ultimately the difference between imagination and fantasy. To stimulate the child's imagination, therefore, you must give him real things and a real understanding of the world from which he can extrapolate and use creatively. While the child is drawn to fantasy, it is the knowledge from the real world that can enrich his ability to imagine and create.
Dr. Montessori wrote: "Yet, when all are agreed that the child loves to imagine, why do we give him only fairy tales and toys on which to practice this gift? If a child can imagine a fairy and fairyland, it will not be difficult for him to imagine America. Instead of hearing it referred to vaguely in conversation, he can help to clarify his own ideas of it by looking at the globe on which it is shown." In To Educate The Human Potential she wrote: "Educationalists in general agree that imagination is important, but the would have it cultivated as separate from intelligence, just as they would separate the latter from the activity of the hand. They are vivisectionsists of the human personality. In the school they want children to learn dry facts of reality, while their imagination is cultivated by fairy tales, concerned with a world that is certainly full of marvels, but not the world around them in which they live. Certainly these tales have impressive factors which move the childish mind to pity and horror, for they are full of woe and tragedy, of children who are starved, ill-treated, abandoned, and betrayed. Just as adults find pleasure in tragic drama and literature, these tales of goblins and monsters give pleasure and stir the child’s imagination, but they have no connection with reality."
In my opinion, part of what I think Dr. Montessori was critiquing adults' misunderstanding of the child, always trying to occupy his time with fake things or toys that serve the purpose of making the child "busy" so that he does not interfere with adult things. Sometimes this stems from not understanding what the child really needs or is capable of, and sometime it stems from sheer self-absorption (we don't want to clean something up, we don't want to include the child who will take too long, we want it done perfectly). For example, instead of letting a child explore the things we have in the kitchen or let them assist us in preparing dinner, we buy them plastic kitchens and tell them to "play." This act of play is devoid in meaning because it robs the child of the ability to learn something or develop skills by working with real objects.
While wooden or fabric toys (I hate plastic ones) that focus a child's grasping or sensorial skills can be good, it is just as important to let our children explore what is real. Now that he has developed the powers of grasping and holding, I let my son entertain himself with real objects to explore: a spoon from the kitchen, a brush, a sock, etc. Rather than buy him a toy piano with light up noises, we let him explore a real piano. When he showed fascination in his father's guitar but my husband was worried about him damaging it, we bought him a cheap Ukelele to manipulate until he's old enough to respect the guitar (rather than a fake plastic toy one). I try to find ways to involve him in the world rather than simply occupy him. I think it is most important for our children to explore, to enter the world of real things and make genuine discoveries that will have value to them.
The same goes for the things we tell our children. What is real is what fuels the imagination. Before the age of five, children do not have a clear understanding about the concept of real and unreal, things that are untrue and fantastical. It's important to think of that when we consider what we show our children in movies or what stories we tell them. When Dr. Montessori talked about fairy-tales, I don't think she was thinking of a full ban on them. Maybe she was, but I cannot ask her, so I must go with my instincts. Fairy-tales have their place as representations of culture; they are full of thoughts on morality, history, and mystery. But, in the same breath, to the very young child, they can be danger. Dr. Montessori also said, in The Advanced Montessori Method: "But how can the imagination of children be developed by what is, on the contrary, the fruit of our imagination? It is we who imagine, not they; they believe, they do not imagine. Credulity is, indeed, a characteristic of immature minds which lack experience and knowledge of realities, and are as yet devoid of that intelligence which distinguishes the true from the false, the beautiful from the ugly, and the possible from the impossible." She makes a good point to all of those who think that showing a child fantasy teaches him to use his imagination. These stories are the products of an adult's imagination. They do not teach the child how to imagine, but instead fill his stories with unreal ideas that stem from the minds of others.
I'm not saying that fantasy has no place in a child's life. I don't think Dr. Montessori was either. I think the point is that we need to be very careful with fantasy, and we need to be realistic when we think about a child's needs with regard to it. Before we expose our children to things they may not understand, we need to remember that they might take what is unreal as real. This is of importance when you think about exposing a child to Star Wars or you tell him there are monsters. So many times, as a teacher, I saw children on the playground attacking each other with light sabers without any real understanding of the implications of such a thing. When children don't understand what is real and it enters into their play, they can become desensitized to things like violence without every full understanding what it means. They can also develop very real fears because they don't have the ability to separate the unreal from the real. How many of us have seen a child terrified of something that made no sense...and how often has that stemmed from fantastical stories he may have heard?
Some people might argue with me here that the value of a fairytale likes within its moral structure, its tale of the human condition or human social structure. Fairytales can tell us how things should be or make us think about the nature of good and evil. But, fairytales were not written for young children. Because, children below a certain age do not understand the complexities of these ideas. As they turn five or six and their ability to understand more abstract social concepts develops, then these moral tales have some value. Before this age, however, children are too concrete to see anything more than the superficial storyline.
I think, when it comes to fantasy, we must strike a balance with our young children under the age of five. I think that when we hope to occupy them, we should look to engage them in what is real, because that is what will benefit them the most. Helping them learn about the world and what exists is always more valuable than what doesn't exist. At the same time, however, it is an enriching experience to expose children to stories that are timeless and classic to the culture in which we live. But, we should be careful and think about what those stories tell our children. We should not hesitate to talk to them about the story and let them know that it is not real. When we read a story about a talking cow, it is important to point out to the child that cows don't talk and so that this story is pretend. We should be careful before we share ideas with young children that may cause them fear because they cannot detach the fantasy from the reality. I don't think that means we should sugarcoat everything. Rather, we should be honest about what is fantasy and what is not. What behaviors are acceptable in the stories we see, and what are not. What is possible in the real world, and what is not. We should talk about the ideas brought up by the story with regard to what is real and what is not.
Fantasy has it's place, but we should remember that, with all things, moderation is key. Before we come to the belief that children should live in an endless world of fairytale and make believe, we should consider what they are missing by not being in the real world, developing real skills, and interacting with real things. And when we do engage the world of fantasy, we should remember that the young child takes everything as fact, so it is our job to help them differentiate.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
A Little Dirt a Day Keeps the Doctor Away!
As part of my son's exploration of the world, we often go outside so that he can take in the wonders of nature. But, as he develops the abilities to be more hands-on, he has begun to "take in" nature in a whole new way. The other day, I let him sit in the grass so he could feel it on his feet and pull at it with his hands. Being Autumn, he is surrounded by leaves. Previously, when he was little and just starting to learn to grasp, I would take him up to plants to touch the leaves. But now, here they were all around him to touch and to hold...and to put in his mouth.
Unlike most mothers I see, I laughed. "That's not food, silly," I said. But he kept right on sucking on the leaf. Eventually, he got bored with it and picked up something else. On with his exploration. I plucked a blade of grass. He tried it and tossed it. I smiled. My husband came home from work to find us playing, and I boasted to him, "so many mothers would rip these leaves away from him, but I know better." "Aren't you worried about botulism?" he asked. I made some weird scoffing sound and laughed him off. But, wait, I thought, do I really know everything I need to know about dirt? Off I went to prove him wrong...hopefully. My little guy did put a number of leaves in his mouth.
And luckily, as I suspected but only now have the factual knowledge to support, dirt is good for our kids! As many of us know and have witnessed, babies explore the world with their mouths. Their sense of touch his strongest here, and it helps them explore shape, texture, and so much more about the objects they come into contact with. However, it's also nature's own built in way of creating a strong and tolerant immune system. When it comes to the immune system, the maxim use it or lose it definitely applies. Studies forming the hygiene hypothesis, believe that exposure to bacteria and viruses in dirt is what helps use develop our immune system in order to fight off a host of diseases. Too much cleanliness leaves young children's immune systems weak and unable to fight things they come into contact with. Additionally, contact with these kinds of things teaches the immune system what to pay attention to and what to ignore. For more scientifically collected information, Mary Ruebush, a microbiology and immunology instructor, wrote her book Why Dirt Is Good: 5 Ways to Make Germs Your Friends
about this very thing.
What I found most interesting, however, was that worms are a big part of training and developing our immune system. Studies have used worms (and I don't mean earthworms but rather parasites) to attack autoimmune diseases. There is evidence that these parasites help our bodies avoid autoimmune disorders like allergies, asthma, multiple sclerosis, Crone's disease, and others. Autoimmune disorders are our bodies working against itself, and many scientists are finding that this is because the body doesn't know what it should be fighting. The study of parasites is offering a lot of information on how our immune system develops.
Now, the hygiene hypothesis is still just that: a hypothesis. And it's not accepted amongst the entire medical community. However, if you google it, you will find a number of studies that do support it. The FDA states that "the “hygiene hypothesis” is supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating that allergic diseases and asthma are more likely to occur when the incidence and levels of endotoxin (bacterial lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) in the home are low." The general conclusion seems to be that our over-cleanliness is not helping our bodies or our children at all.
This is not to say that cleanliness is a bad thing. Washing our hands after using the bathroom and a healthy sanitation system are still incredible ways that our society keeps healthy. The hygiene hypothesis in no way says to swing from one way to the other. Rather, it says that too much cleanliness is the problem; we've swung too far the other way from a completely unsanitary society. Those parents bleaching their houses to death trying to eradicate every germ aren't doing their children any favors. Washing everything with antibacterial soap is even worse, because not only does it kill the germs that help build the immune system, but those same bacteria become resistant to the antibacterial solutions. So while we are weakening immune systems, we are building stronger germs!
I'm not saying we should start serving dirt for dinner. When I let my son eat leaves, I knew they were ones that had recently fallen to the grass and were not yet peed on by some creature. What I am saying is that children need freedom to explore the world with their hands and mouths, without us constantly batting everything away from them out of fear of germs. Yes, animal poop is bad to eat, but a stick in the mouth or a little sand...not so bad. Nature designed our bodies to fight, but they need practice and training. And, even more importantly, our babies need opportunities to explore nature the way they were designed to.
Unlike most mothers I see, I laughed. "That's not food, silly," I said. But he kept right on sucking on the leaf. Eventually, he got bored with it and picked up something else. On with his exploration. I plucked a blade of grass. He tried it and tossed it. I smiled. My husband came home from work to find us playing, and I boasted to him, "so many mothers would rip these leaves away from him, but I know better." "Aren't you worried about botulism?" he asked. I made some weird scoffing sound and laughed him off. But, wait, I thought, do I really know everything I need to know about dirt? Off I went to prove him wrong...hopefully. My little guy did put a number of leaves in his mouth.
And luckily, as I suspected but only now have the factual knowledge to support, dirt is good for our kids! As many of us know and have witnessed, babies explore the world with their mouths. Their sense of touch his strongest here, and it helps them explore shape, texture, and so much more about the objects they come into contact with. However, it's also nature's own built in way of creating a strong and tolerant immune system. When it comes to the immune system, the maxim use it or lose it definitely applies. Studies forming the hygiene hypothesis, believe that exposure to bacteria and viruses in dirt is what helps use develop our immune system in order to fight off a host of diseases. Too much cleanliness leaves young children's immune systems weak and unable to fight things they come into contact with. Additionally, contact with these kinds of things teaches the immune system what to pay attention to and what to ignore. For more scientifically collected information, Mary Ruebush, a microbiology and immunology instructor, wrote her book Why Dirt Is Good: 5 Ways to Make Germs Your Friends
about this very thing.What I found most interesting, however, was that worms are a big part of training and developing our immune system. Studies have used worms (and I don't mean earthworms but rather parasites) to attack autoimmune diseases. There is evidence that these parasites help our bodies avoid autoimmune disorders like allergies, asthma, multiple sclerosis, Crone's disease, and others. Autoimmune disorders are our bodies working against itself, and many scientists are finding that this is because the body doesn't know what it should be fighting. The study of parasites is offering a lot of information on how our immune system develops.
Now, the hygiene hypothesis is still just that: a hypothesis. And it's not accepted amongst the entire medical community. However, if you google it, you will find a number of studies that do support it. The FDA states that "the “hygiene hypothesis” is supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating that allergic diseases and asthma are more likely to occur when the incidence and levels of endotoxin (bacterial lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) in the home are low." The general conclusion seems to be that our over-cleanliness is not helping our bodies or our children at all.
This is not to say that cleanliness is a bad thing. Washing our hands after using the bathroom and a healthy sanitation system are still incredible ways that our society keeps healthy. The hygiene hypothesis in no way says to swing from one way to the other. Rather, it says that too much cleanliness is the problem; we've swung too far the other way from a completely unsanitary society. Those parents bleaching their houses to death trying to eradicate every germ aren't doing their children any favors. Washing everything with antibacterial soap is even worse, because not only does it kill the germs that help build the immune system, but those same bacteria become resistant to the antibacterial solutions. So while we are weakening immune systems, we are building stronger germs!
I'm not saying we should start serving dirt for dinner. When I let my son eat leaves, I knew they were ones that had recently fallen to the grass and were not yet peed on by some creature. What I am saying is that children need freedom to explore the world with their hands and mouths, without us constantly batting everything away from them out of fear of germs. Yes, animal poop is bad to eat, but a stick in the mouth or a little sand...not so bad. Nature designed our bodies to fight, but they need practice and training. And, even more importantly, our babies need opportunities to explore nature the way they were designed to.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
A Baby Cold: Natural Remedies
My little guy officially has his first cold. Poor thing, he's all stuffy and can't breathe. It started last Thursday night; towards the morning he seemed a little congested. But then, he was fine all the following day. That night, however, he woke up all night long, maybe every half hour, and I could tell that he just couldn't breathe. It was an exhausting night, so I spent the next day trying to naturally combat the common cold (he has no fever). Another night followed of barely sleeping (on my part, he slept but need to be rocked back to sleep every time he woke from not being able to breathe). After that, the congestion has begun to slow and I continue to monitor him for a cough.
It's hard when your little one gets like this, because there's nothing you can do to just make it go away. Cough and cold medicines are unsafe for children under two years of age, and the American Academy of Pediatricians strongly advises against the use of these over-the-counter medicines for this age group due to the possibility of severe or life-threatening side effects. However, there are many holistic and natural remedies out there for fighting the common cold and are safe for young babies. Now, if your child has a high fever or is under three months of age, a trip to the doctor is essential. But, if it's just your run of the mill cold, there are a few things you can do to hopefully shorten the duration and severity of the virus.
It's hard when your little one gets like this, because there's nothing you can do to just make it go away. Cough and cold medicines are unsafe for children under two years of age, and the American Academy of Pediatricians strongly advises against the use of these over-the-counter medicines for this age group due to the possibility of severe or life-threatening side effects. However, there are many holistic and natural remedies out there for fighting the common cold and are safe for young babies. Now, if your child has a high fever or is under three months of age, a trip to the doctor is essential. But, if it's just your run of the mill cold, there are a few things you can do to hopefully shorten the duration and severity of the virus.
Here's the natural and safe remedies we are working with:
Wild Oregano Oil. This oil, procured from oregano that grows wild, has both antibiotic and antiviral properties. And the great thing, from an antibiotic standpoint, is that the body does not develop a resistance. Also, you don't have to worry about overdosing. Wild Oregano Oil contains carvacrol, a natural active ingredient that works against a host of different health problems. It has been scientifically studied, and researchers have found that it can help with strep and other infections. It has antibiotic, antiviral, and antifungal properties. You can buy Wild Oregano Oil
online or at Whole Foods. It has no side effects, except that it is spicy if not diluted so can be rough on your stomach. To combat that, I dilute it (50/50 with olive oil) and take it after I have eaten. For babies, never put it undiluted on their skin and it's too strong for ingestion. Instead, rub some 50/50 mixture on the bottom of their feet. Wild Oregano Oil works best when taken throughout the day. The first day of symptoms I applied it to my son every two hours. As the symptoms recede, I do it two to three times a day. I will continue until all the symptoms are gone. This way, as long as the mucus is being produced, I can hope to help him fight off any infections in his nose or chest that mucus can cause.
NOTE: You will find many websites that do not recommend Wild Oregano Oil for breastfeeding or pregnant women, and some for children. Most people who use it and many sites (including the book The Cure is in the Cupboard by Dr. Cass Ingram) say that it is okay for children, mostly as long as it is diluted and only put on the soles of the feet. With pregnancy, most supplements are not recommended and I am not certain whether or not it is or is not safe. With breastfeeding, I have found that it is not recommended as it may possibly reduce milk supply, although there is no research to substantiate that. So, be cautious when using it yourself if you are breastfeeding or pregnant. According to Oreganol's FAQ's use of the oil (not pills or anything else) is ok for breastfeeding up to 5-10 drops a day, pregnancy (ONLY after the first trimester) 1-2 drops a day, and for children 2-3 drops administered and diluted on the bottom of the feet for no more than ten days in a row.
Hydrogen Peroxide. I discovered this remedy from Natural Baby and Childcare
written by Dr. Lauren Feder, MD. In the thirties, a doctor believed that viruses entered the body through the ear canal and could be combatted there. Later researchers found positive effects of this remedy on shortening the duration of a cold, but it's been largely ignored by the medical community and not well substantiated. We now know that the virus enters through the nasal passages, but the sinuses and ear canal are linked. I used this when my son got sick, and my husband did not. I fought it off and he didn't. For adults, put four drops hydrogen peroxide in one ear, let it sit for a few minutes with your head turned to keep it from pouring out. Then, turn your head and let it drip out. Do the other side. For babies, put three or four drops in each ear. It will drain out naturally. Use this remedy in the first 12-24 hours when symptoms appear a few times during the day. It has no side effects and, even if it doesn't kill your cold, can help with earwax buildup. For me, this was worth a shot.
Breastfeed Frequently. If you are breastfeeding, this is one of the best things you can do for baby. Human milk does not increase mucus and so you don't have to worry about reducing feeding. Instead, your milk contains antibodies that can help baby fight the cold. Plus, baby may take less when its hard to breathe while drinking, so breastfeed more frequently.
Humidifier with Vapor. At night we use a steam humidifier/vaporizer. In all my researching, I found that menthol can cause babies to have more breathing problems, whereas the use of eucalyptus oil seems less problematic, so we poured eucalyptus oil into the liquid inhalant part of the vaporizer to help open up his airway. It helped us too.
Vapor Rub. While Vicks Vapor Rub contains menthol and shouldn't be used on babies, they do make a baby rub that only uses Eucalptus which we used and rubbed on his chest. I also dabbed a little on his nose, but you want to be really careful that they cannot ingest it. There are other companies that make more natural vapor rubs for babies which I will look for next time (we had to get something fast as we were unprepared, and so CVS it was).
Bulb Syringe. Because a baby can't blow his nose, a bulb syringe to suction out the mucus works extremely well. My son screams when we do this, but he does breathe a whole lot easier afterwards. Just be careful not to do it too often, otherwise you risk inflaming the nasal passages and creating more mucus. I try to do it only before he is going to nap or sleep at night, otherwise I let it run out naturally and just gently wipe the mucus away. You can also try saline drops in the nose, but my son was already so upset about the syringe, we decided not to push it. The same applies there too; too much saline can end up drying out the nose causing more mucus production. When it comes to noses, less is more, for all of us.
Hopefully these remedies will help your little one the way they did mine. Please remember, I am not a doctor. See a doctor if there is a high fever, or the cold/cough is persistent for more than two weeks, or if there are signs of ear pain. Good luck to your little one...and please feel free to share any remedies you have with me!
online or at Whole Foods. It has no side effects, except that it is spicy if not diluted so can be rough on your stomach. To combat that, I dilute it (50/50 with olive oil) and take it after I have eaten. For babies, never put it undiluted on their skin and it's too strong for ingestion. Instead, rub some 50/50 mixture on the bottom of their feet. Wild Oregano Oil works best when taken throughout the day. The first day of symptoms I applied it to my son every two hours. As the symptoms recede, I do it two to three times a day. I will continue until all the symptoms are gone. This way, as long as the mucus is being produced, I can hope to help him fight off any infections in his nose or chest that mucus can cause.NOTE: You will find many websites that do not recommend Wild Oregano Oil for breastfeeding or pregnant women, and some for children. Most people who use it and many sites (including the book The Cure is in the Cupboard by Dr. Cass Ingram) say that it is okay for children, mostly as long as it is diluted and only put on the soles of the feet. With pregnancy, most supplements are not recommended and I am not certain whether or not it is or is not safe. With breastfeeding, I have found that it is not recommended as it may possibly reduce milk supply, although there is no research to substantiate that. So, be cautious when using it yourself if you are breastfeeding or pregnant. According to Oreganol's FAQ's use of the oil (not pills or anything else) is ok for breastfeeding up to 5-10 drops a day, pregnancy (ONLY after the first trimester) 1-2 drops a day, and for children 2-3 drops administered and diluted on the bottom of the feet for no more than ten days in a row.
Hydrogen Peroxide. I discovered this remedy from Natural Baby and Childcare
written by Dr. Lauren Feder, MD. In the thirties, a doctor believed that viruses entered the body through the ear canal and could be combatted there. Later researchers found positive effects of this remedy on shortening the duration of a cold, but it's been largely ignored by the medical community and not well substantiated. We now know that the virus enters through the nasal passages, but the sinuses and ear canal are linked. I used this when my son got sick, and my husband did not. I fought it off and he didn't. For adults, put four drops hydrogen peroxide in one ear, let it sit for a few minutes with your head turned to keep it from pouring out. Then, turn your head and let it drip out. Do the other side. For babies, put three or four drops in each ear. It will drain out naturally. Use this remedy in the first 12-24 hours when symptoms appear a few times during the day. It has no side effects and, even if it doesn't kill your cold, can help with earwax buildup. For me, this was worth a shot.Breastfeed Frequently. If you are breastfeeding, this is one of the best things you can do for baby. Human milk does not increase mucus and so you don't have to worry about reducing feeding. Instead, your milk contains antibodies that can help baby fight the cold. Plus, baby may take less when its hard to breathe while drinking, so breastfeed more frequently.
Humidifier with Vapor. At night we use a steam humidifier/vaporizer. In all my researching, I found that menthol can cause babies to have more breathing problems, whereas the use of eucalyptus oil seems less problematic, so we poured eucalyptus oil into the liquid inhalant part of the vaporizer to help open up his airway. It helped us too.
Vapor Rub. While Vicks Vapor Rub contains menthol and shouldn't be used on babies, they do make a baby rub that only uses Eucalptus which we used and rubbed on his chest. I also dabbed a little on his nose, but you want to be really careful that they cannot ingest it. There are other companies that make more natural vapor rubs for babies which I will look for next time (we had to get something fast as we were unprepared, and so CVS it was).
Bulb Syringe. Because a baby can't blow his nose, a bulb syringe to suction out the mucus works extremely well. My son screams when we do this, but he does breathe a whole lot easier afterwards. Just be careful not to do it too often, otherwise you risk inflaming the nasal passages and creating more mucus. I try to do it only before he is going to nap or sleep at night, otherwise I let it run out naturally and just gently wipe the mucus away. You can also try saline drops in the nose, but my son was already so upset about the syringe, we decided not to push it. The same applies there too; too much saline can end up drying out the nose causing more mucus production. When it comes to noses, less is more, for all of us.
Hopefully these remedies will help your little one the way they did mine. Please remember, I am not a doctor. See a doctor if there is a high fever, or the cold/cough is persistent for more than two weeks, or if there are signs of ear pain. Good luck to your little one...and please feel free to share any remedies you have with me!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Spiritual Embryo: Creating the Self
Every time I look at my son, I am reminded of what Dr. Montessori called the "spiritual embryo." I think to myself that she had it right, he is certainly creating himself. Everything he does has a purpose and a sense of self. So remarkable that, from birth, we are makers of our own creation. It is not me who makes him think, he does that all on his own. Instead, my role is to enrich his environment with the things he can use in his creation. What I do and do not put into his world is my affect on his soul. But what he does with that is all his own.
When Dr. Montessori first coined the phrase, “spiritual embryo,” she was considering the intellectual development of the child. From birth, the human child is completely dependent upon his caregivers; a phase of dependency that is unusually long and unique to our species. While other mammals walk or communicate within hours of delivery, the human child is helpless. The delay in maturation of physical development allows the human brain to make connections and develop pathways that ultimately lead to our ability to excel as a species. A more intelligent brain takes more time, essentially.
Dr. Montessori observed that this period of time was more than physical and intellectual development. She found it to be one of great spiritual development. During this time the child is dramatically able to absorb information and begin to categorize it. Children are hard-wired to learn, both in design and desire. This predisposition to learning comes out of our species' need for survival. We were not given tough shells to protect us or rapier claws. We do not have speed or the ability to fly. Our senses of sight, hearing, and smell are far inferior to those of other species. Our special skill, what makes us so amazing a species when we have no natural defenses, lies in our amazing intellect. Our ability to think makes us the dominant species and amazing survivors. It only makes sense that we would be wired to do what it takes to develop such an intellect: learn.
So, from birth, children have a very specific job. They are creators; creators of themselves. The brain allows for this creation through learning. It triggers what Dr. Montessori called sensitive periods that allow the child to focus on specific areas of development. This focus, observed and marked by interest on the part of the child, creates neuro-pathways in the brain dedicated to the abilities the child focuses on. A child may be working on moving by crawling, or categorizing by showing interest in the order of things. A child working on and absorbing language shows an interest when people speak or when people move their lips. Then the child attempts to replicate those sounds. If you think about how many things children learn to do without you every really showing them, it illustrates the very point that I am making. Children learn to walk and talk without you really teaching them, they learn because it is what they were meant to do.
But, the spiritual embryo is more than development of movement or ability, it is the development of a psychological self. The experiences, sensations, and impressions taken in from the outer environment, along with a child's own biological temperament and chemistry, help the child bring together a psychological sense of self. They develop interests, ideas, and desires unique to their own being. Their learning experience becomes unique, despite the fact that they start out developing abilities all human develop. How they do it, when they do it, and to what degree all stems from their own unique self.
The child’s reality is that he must learn; rather than be given information, he needs the support to explore his environment in order to actively acquire information and practice his skills. Our only job is to enrich that environment with things from which he can absorb information, and give him access to those things. Our protection from inappropriate or unsafe experiences and our support of positive experiences is our role as parents in shaping our children. But, we can't forget that they are still unique individuals. Though they be derived from us and given care by us, they are still their own selves. They are still responsible for that creation.
Every time I look at my son, I see him become a person: his own person. And I am continually amazed at how he is driven to become someone. And every day, I love getting to know who that person is. And every day, I wonder who he will be and I look forward to loving whoever he becomes.
So, from birth, children have a very specific job. They are creators; creators of themselves. The brain allows for this creation through learning. It triggers what Dr. Montessori called sensitive periods that allow the child to focus on specific areas of development. This focus, observed and marked by interest on the part of the child, creates neuro-pathways in the brain dedicated to the abilities the child focuses on. A child may be working on moving by crawling, or categorizing by showing interest in the order of things. A child working on and absorbing language shows an interest when people speak or when people move their lips. Then the child attempts to replicate those sounds. If you think about how many things children learn to do without you every really showing them, it illustrates the very point that I am making. Children learn to walk and talk without you really teaching them, they learn because it is what they were meant to do.
But, the spiritual embryo is more than development of movement or ability, it is the development of a psychological self. The experiences, sensations, and impressions taken in from the outer environment, along with a child's own biological temperament and chemistry, help the child bring together a psychological sense of self. They develop interests, ideas, and desires unique to their own being. Their learning experience becomes unique, despite the fact that they start out developing abilities all human develop. How they do it, when they do it, and to what degree all stems from their own unique self.
The child’s reality is that he must learn; rather than be given information, he needs the support to explore his environment in order to actively acquire information and practice his skills. Our only job is to enrich that environment with things from which he can absorb information, and give him access to those things. Our protection from inappropriate or unsafe experiences and our support of positive experiences is our role as parents in shaping our children. But, we can't forget that they are still unique individuals. Though they be derived from us and given care by us, they are still their own selves. They are still responsible for that creation.
Every time I look at my son, I see him become a person: his own person. And I am continually amazed at how he is driven to become someone. And every day, I love getting to know who that person is. And every day, I wonder who he will be and I look forward to loving whoever he becomes.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Is Crawling Really Important?
My little guy is just starting to show signs of being ready to crawl. Just watching the process has me completely fascinated. People keep telling me that I'm in for it once he learns to crawl, but I must say, I am excited for him. Crawling might be one of the most amazing parts of a child's developmental process. It's more than just a mode of transportation, it's a start to real independence.
For years, as a teacher, I have been expressing to parents how important crawling is. I've told many people that it was an essential part of brain development and that parents of children who went straight to walking should not be excited by this. I'd learned the information from multiple sources. Many experts, including pediatricians feel that crawling leads to coordination between the right and left hemisphere of the brain, training them to work together (which has later implications on reading ability and comprehension). There are some theories that crawling increases binocular vision, which allows the eyes to focus at a distance and then back to a place closer to a person. This ultimately leads to better proprioception (awareness of one's body in space), vestibular sense (located in the ear and responsible for balance and spatial awareness), and visual sense (which is the ability to absorb and interpret visual information from the environment). There are also theories on a strong connection between crawling and speech development. There are muscles in the neck and back of the shoulders that connect the nerves under the tongue. If you pull your shoulders and neck back (flexing the muscles so your shoulder blades are touching and your head is leaned back), you can feel the tension on your frenulum (the little piece of skin that connects your tongue to the bottom of the mouth and helps control its movements. Crawling strengthens these muscles, and ultimately this impacts a child's use of his tongue in speech development.
It all makes a lot of sense, a baby definitely needs to coordinate both sides of his body to crawl, and after squeezing my shoulders together and putting my head back, I certainly felt the impact on my tongue. But, as I watch my little guy start working on crawling, I began to wonder, what is the research that shows a relationship between crawling and stronger intellectual development? Are babies who skip to walking or crawl less actual in danger of stunting their development? I know that my little guy seems to desperately want to walk and once he gets up on his hands and knees, I wonder how long he'll actually stay there. So the information seems pertinent.
And again, I hit the internet and every developmental book I have. And I found nothing in the way of documented research. No actual research study showing a relationship between crawling and stronger development. Instead, I found research studies done in Papua New Guinea that showed an indigenous group who never lets their babies crawl (for health reasons of keeping the child's hands out of the dirt). These children are not put on their tummies and they are only put down in sitting position on the ground. And they all walk just fine. And they all develop at a normal rate. So, according to this study, crawling does not have an impact on later physical development. However, it did not look at intellectual development.
I found other sites and research on gifted education suggesting that giftedness and intelligence is based on powering through the developmental milestones, which would meaning that going straight to walking would be a sign of more highly developed intellectual development. And, while I don't believe this to be entirely true (that when your child hits a milestone is a predictor of intelligence), I did find a pretty strong link between earlier language development and higher intelligence in children. But again, that all depends on whether or not the measurement of intelligence is really accurate (which is very difficult to do).
So, I got to thinking, if crawling boosts language development, then perhaps it does have an impact on brain development. I looked for the research on that, and it appears, from what I found, that there definitely is a relationship, but I'm not sure that it's causal. Crawling is certainly a sign that something is happening in the brain. So, if there is a delay in crawling (and by delay, I don't mean going straight to walking), then this does signify that something is not going on in the brain that needs to be, both for locomotion and language development. These delays are serious and should be looked at by a specialist. However, if your child is on target or early with crawling or walking or scooting, then the research seems to support that your child is developmentally fine.
What I took from all this research is that crawling has an important role in a child's development in at least that it signifies an important aspect of brain development. And, if you thinking about crawling from a larger perspective, the position the body takes during crawling is clearly an important one. Even children who have mastered walking (I'm referring to those of elementary age) will still find situations to crawl. If you take yoga, you have certainly found yourself in crawling position and you have certainly done activities that operate both sides of the body, legs and arms. The one thing we know for certain is that movement is an essential part of brain development and learning, and all types of movement are beneficial in different ways. And, at all ages.
So, it seems to make sense that if your child skips crawling or rushes through it, you should not be concerned (it might even be a sign of advancement if your child is hitting many other milestones early as well, if that research can be trusted), but it is always a excellent idea to find ways to encourage or support crawling. This doesn't mean forcing it or trying to prevent your child from walking (which, believe it or not, I have heard anecdotes of pediatricians and specialists suggesting and I just believe that forcing is the worst way to encourage anything in children), but rather, find fun ways to incorporate crawling in your child's life. Add it into play by crawling around like animals or going on an obstacle course that involves crawling under a table or under anything you can think of. Get down on your hands and knees and crawl to see if your child will mimic you. Buy one of those fun tunnels your child can crawl through. Hold up a hula-hoop and let your child crawl through it. Use your imagination, there are lots of ways to encourage crawling. It also means, don't discourage crawling (unless it's an extremely inappropriate time), because maybe it's just what your child's brain needs.
Watching my little guy start to crawl is really becoming an amazing experience. It tells me that his brain is really sparked and ready to go, and I must say that complex babbling is really going hand and hand with it. But, more than language development and brain development, what excites me is that crawling (or any form of locomotion) is bringing him closer to independence. And, to me, independence is the greatest achievement of all.
If anyone out there knows of any specific research on crawling and brain development, please let me know!
For years, as a teacher, I have been expressing to parents how important crawling is. I've told many people that it was an essential part of brain development and that parents of children who went straight to walking should not be excited by this. I'd learned the information from multiple sources. Many experts, including pediatricians feel that crawling leads to coordination between the right and left hemisphere of the brain, training them to work together (which has later implications on reading ability and comprehension). There are some theories that crawling increases binocular vision, which allows the eyes to focus at a distance and then back to a place closer to a person. This ultimately leads to better proprioception (awareness of one's body in space), vestibular sense (located in the ear and responsible for balance and spatial awareness), and visual sense (which is the ability to absorb and interpret visual information from the environment). There are also theories on a strong connection between crawling and speech development. There are muscles in the neck and back of the shoulders that connect the nerves under the tongue. If you pull your shoulders and neck back (flexing the muscles so your shoulder blades are touching and your head is leaned back), you can feel the tension on your frenulum (the little piece of skin that connects your tongue to the bottom of the mouth and helps control its movements. Crawling strengthens these muscles, and ultimately this impacts a child's use of his tongue in speech development.
It all makes a lot of sense, a baby definitely needs to coordinate both sides of his body to crawl, and after squeezing my shoulders together and putting my head back, I certainly felt the impact on my tongue. But, as I watch my little guy start working on crawling, I began to wonder, what is the research that shows a relationship between crawling and stronger intellectual development? Are babies who skip to walking or crawl less actual in danger of stunting their development? I know that my little guy seems to desperately want to walk and once he gets up on his hands and knees, I wonder how long he'll actually stay there. So the information seems pertinent.
And again, I hit the internet and every developmental book I have. And I found nothing in the way of documented research. No actual research study showing a relationship between crawling and stronger development. Instead, I found research studies done in Papua New Guinea that showed an indigenous group who never lets their babies crawl (for health reasons of keeping the child's hands out of the dirt). These children are not put on their tummies and they are only put down in sitting position on the ground. And they all walk just fine. And they all develop at a normal rate. So, according to this study, crawling does not have an impact on later physical development. However, it did not look at intellectual development.
I found other sites and research on gifted education suggesting that giftedness and intelligence is based on powering through the developmental milestones, which would meaning that going straight to walking would be a sign of more highly developed intellectual development. And, while I don't believe this to be entirely true (that when your child hits a milestone is a predictor of intelligence), I did find a pretty strong link between earlier language development and higher intelligence in children. But again, that all depends on whether or not the measurement of intelligence is really accurate (which is very difficult to do).
So, I got to thinking, if crawling boosts language development, then perhaps it does have an impact on brain development. I looked for the research on that, and it appears, from what I found, that there definitely is a relationship, but I'm not sure that it's causal. Crawling is certainly a sign that something is happening in the brain. So, if there is a delay in crawling (and by delay, I don't mean going straight to walking), then this does signify that something is not going on in the brain that needs to be, both for locomotion and language development. These delays are serious and should be looked at by a specialist. However, if your child is on target or early with crawling or walking or scooting, then the research seems to support that your child is developmentally fine.
What I took from all this research is that crawling has an important role in a child's development in at least that it signifies an important aspect of brain development. And, if you thinking about crawling from a larger perspective, the position the body takes during crawling is clearly an important one. Even children who have mastered walking (I'm referring to those of elementary age) will still find situations to crawl. If you take yoga, you have certainly found yourself in crawling position and you have certainly done activities that operate both sides of the body, legs and arms. The one thing we know for certain is that movement is an essential part of brain development and learning, and all types of movement are beneficial in different ways. And, at all ages.
So, it seems to make sense that if your child skips crawling or rushes through it, you should not be concerned (it might even be a sign of advancement if your child is hitting many other milestones early as well, if that research can be trusted), but it is always a excellent idea to find ways to encourage or support crawling. This doesn't mean forcing it or trying to prevent your child from walking (which, believe it or not, I have heard anecdotes of pediatricians and specialists suggesting and I just believe that forcing is the worst way to encourage anything in children), but rather, find fun ways to incorporate crawling in your child's life. Add it into play by crawling around like animals or going on an obstacle course that involves crawling under a table or under anything you can think of. Get down on your hands and knees and crawl to see if your child will mimic you. Buy one of those fun tunnels your child can crawl through. Hold up a hula-hoop and let your child crawl through it. Use your imagination, there are lots of ways to encourage crawling. It also means, don't discourage crawling (unless it's an extremely inappropriate time), because maybe it's just what your child's brain needs.
Watching my little guy start to crawl is really becoming an amazing experience. It tells me that his brain is really sparked and ready to go, and I must say that complex babbling is really going hand and hand with it. But, more than language development and brain development, what excites me is that crawling (or any form of locomotion) is bringing him closer to independence. And, to me, independence is the greatest achievement of all.
If anyone out there knows of any specific research on crawling and brain development, please let me know!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Are Cell Phones Dangerous For Our Children?
A recent cell phone study, reported by CBS News, has found no link between long term cell phone use and brain cancer. This study involved more than 350,000 people and is one of the most extensive ones done. So...we can all breathe a little easier, especially if you are like me and have a hard time letting your IPhone leave your side.
But what about our kids? A new study reported by Electromagnetic Health calls for new cell phone safety guidelines and expresses concern that we may be underestimating the amount of radiation being absorbed by children and small adults. The current basis for cell phone safety verification is based on a large adult and does not take into account the affect of this radiation on smaller individuals. Because of the concerns of the researchers, they suggest that using a cell phone away from the head is safer (i.e. using a headset).
As I went back and looked at the first study, I confirmed that it did not look at children at all. The second study, on the other hand, did not look at long term health data from actual people. So, while I know my husband is safe from his cell phone, I'm not so sure I am (as a small adult) and even less sure that my son is. You might ask why I would be concerned about a cell phone and a 7 month old, but he loves my IPhone. He particularly loves to chew on my IPhone and these studies make me realize I've been letting him chew on a radiated device!
Despite the lack of absolute confirmation that cell phones are dangerous for our kids, I'm thinking that restricting his access to my phone might be the safer route, or at least keep it away from his mouth and head. Or direct him to the IPad. If I had an older child, I might get him or her a headset and encourage that use. So far, it appears that it becomes dangerous when it is directly near the head.
Hmm, another complication in my life-long relationship with technology.
But what about our kids? A new study reported by Electromagnetic Health calls for new cell phone safety guidelines and expresses concern that we may be underestimating the amount of radiation being absorbed by children and small adults. The current basis for cell phone safety verification is based on a large adult and does not take into account the affect of this radiation on smaller individuals. Because of the concerns of the researchers, they suggest that using a cell phone away from the head is safer (i.e. using a headset).
As I went back and looked at the first study, I confirmed that it did not look at children at all. The second study, on the other hand, did not look at long term health data from actual people. So, while I know my husband is safe from his cell phone, I'm not so sure I am (as a small adult) and even less sure that my son is. You might ask why I would be concerned about a cell phone and a 7 month old, but he loves my IPhone. He particularly loves to chew on my IPhone and these studies make me realize I've been letting him chew on a radiated device!
Despite the lack of absolute confirmation that cell phones are dangerous for our kids, I'm thinking that restricting his access to my phone might be the safer route, or at least keep it away from his mouth and head. Or direct him to the IPad. If I had an older child, I might get him or her a headset and encourage that use. So far, it appears that it becomes dangerous when it is directly near the head.
Hmm, another complication in my life-long relationship with technology.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Making Tummy Time Easier
You'll hear it from doctors and you'll read it in every parenting and development book out there: tummy time is essential. With children sleeping on their backs these days, they have fewer opportunities to develop the muscles necessary for crawling, sitting themselves up, and pulling up to stand. So, tummy time is a way of helping them develop these muscles. It also helps them develop the muscles for lifting the head and chest which allow a child to look around and observe his surroundings. Additionally, any time off of their backs gives children the chance to develop proper head shape avoiding the flat head condition.
But, for so many of us, we put our little ones down on their tummies and we don't get smiles or gurgles, we get screams! So what do we do when an essential developmental activity causes our children such frustration?!
After my little guy was born I began wondering about tummy time. I found sources that told me that I should start right away, but when you place a three week old down on his tummy on a mat, it's not usually a pleasant experience. So, we mostly let him spend time on his tummy directly on us, which he was fine with. After a few months, we tried to place him on his tummy more often, but he still absolutely hated it. After a minute he was in full distress. So we did it in small periods of time never letting him get too upset. If a minute was all he could take, a minute was all he would do. Over time and with some tricks, he began to build his way up to longer stretches of time, maybe five minutes or, occasionally, even ten minutes. As his skills increased, the amount of time he could last would increase.
Here are a few ideas I have discovered and read that make tummy time a little easier and a little more fun:
Explore different places. Some babies like the bed, some babies like the floor, and others like carpet. Move your child around and see where he likes it best.
Lay baby on his tummy on the edge of the bed and get eye level with him. This is assuming your little one is not beginning to crawl in any fashion yet. This is a great way to excite baby, and much easier to do than laying on the floor (although that's a great idea too). You can even hide and pop up if he likes peek-a-boo activities. You can also sing or dance or do any kind of performance you know he loves.
Lay baby on your chest or on the lower part of your legs in "airplane" position. Tummy time doesn't have to be on the floor. You can easily place your child on your body and let his motivation for lifting his head be to stare at your face. Making faces can be all the more encouraging.
Lay baby on a sheet on the floor and pull him around the room. Some babies love movement, so an activity like this can keep babies so entertained they are willing to stay in tummy position longer. However, if your child hates this, do not push it and move onto something else.
Toys can be motivation. My son loves this hand drum we purchased. It has a parrot on it that he loves to stare at. When I put him in tummy time and began playing the drum he would lift his head to stare at it and last much longer than he had before. I could also move the drum so that he would have to move his head, helping strengthen his neck muscles and help him practice moving in order to see and object. It also encouraged tracking (following a moving object with the eyes).
Brevity is fine, don't push it. Don't listen to how long people say your child should stay on his tummy for. Instead, focus on how long he can stay. Some sessions will be long and some will be short. And that's fine. If it's a short period of time, take a long break and try again later.
Peak your child's interest. As baby gets older and begins sitting or exploring crawling, find those things that he absolutely loves and place them just out of range while he's on his tummy. The desire to reach these items can encourage him to stay down longer and try harder. For my son, it's the dog. The first scooting he ever did was to get his hands on the dogs. Oh, and the computer. I always tell him, if you can reach it, you can play with it!
So, when it comes to tummy time, the key is to relax and go with the flow. Yes, it's necessary for development, but it doesn't need to be a battle. And as baby grows and gains in skill, he will grow in confidence as well. Work with baby and help him with encouragement and love. And don't worry what anyone says you should do.
But, for so many of us, we put our little ones down on their tummies and we don't get smiles or gurgles, we get screams! So what do we do when an essential developmental activity causes our children such frustration?!
After my little guy was born I began wondering about tummy time. I found sources that told me that I should start right away, but when you place a three week old down on his tummy on a mat, it's not usually a pleasant experience. So, we mostly let him spend time on his tummy directly on us, which he was fine with. After a few months, we tried to place him on his tummy more often, but he still absolutely hated it. After a minute he was in full distress. So we did it in small periods of time never letting him get too upset. If a minute was all he could take, a minute was all he would do. Over time and with some tricks, he began to build his way up to longer stretches of time, maybe five minutes or, occasionally, even ten minutes. As his skills increased, the amount of time he could last would increase.
Here are a few ideas I have discovered and read that make tummy time a little easier and a little more fun:
Explore different places. Some babies like the bed, some babies like the floor, and others like carpet. Move your child around and see where he likes it best.
Lay baby on his tummy on the edge of the bed and get eye level with him. This is assuming your little one is not beginning to crawl in any fashion yet. This is a great way to excite baby, and much easier to do than laying on the floor (although that's a great idea too). You can even hide and pop up if he likes peek-a-boo activities. You can also sing or dance or do any kind of performance you know he loves.
Lay baby on your chest or on the lower part of your legs in "airplane" position. Tummy time doesn't have to be on the floor. You can easily place your child on your body and let his motivation for lifting his head be to stare at your face. Making faces can be all the more encouraging.
Lay baby on a sheet on the floor and pull him around the room. Some babies love movement, so an activity like this can keep babies so entertained they are willing to stay in tummy position longer. However, if your child hates this, do not push it and move onto something else.
Toys can be motivation. My son loves this hand drum we purchased. It has a parrot on it that he loves to stare at. When I put him in tummy time and began playing the drum he would lift his head to stare at it and last much longer than he had before. I could also move the drum so that he would have to move his head, helping strengthen his neck muscles and help him practice moving in order to see and object. It also encouraged tracking (following a moving object with the eyes).
Brevity is fine, don't push it. Don't listen to how long people say your child should stay on his tummy for. Instead, focus on how long he can stay. Some sessions will be long and some will be short. And that's fine. If it's a short period of time, take a long break and try again later.
Peak your child's interest. As baby gets older and begins sitting or exploring crawling, find those things that he absolutely loves and place them just out of range while he's on his tummy. The desire to reach these items can encourage him to stay down longer and try harder. For my son, it's the dog. The first scooting he ever did was to get his hands on the dogs. Oh, and the computer. I always tell him, if you can reach it, you can play with it!
So, when it comes to tummy time, the key is to relax and go with the flow. Yes, it's necessary for development, but it doesn't need to be a battle. And as baby grows and gains in skill, he will grow in confidence as well. Work with baby and help him with encouragement and love. And don't worry what anyone says you should do.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Demand GMO Labeling!!
The Center for Food Safety has launched a petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to demand that genetically modified foods be identified on labels. The petition can be found in full on their website: CFS GMO Labeling Petition. Click here to sign the petition.
Now, this petition is neither for nor against genetically modified foods (or GMOs), but rather, it is asking that the FDA define genetically modified foods such that it requires them to be noted on the nutrition and ingredient labels on food products. One of the purposes of the FDA is to safeguard public health by ensuring that consumers receive safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented food products. So, for example, if a consumer wants to write "low fat" on its product, then the product must meet specifications for being lower in fat. The Center for Food Safety, along with numerous petitioners (including Horizon Organics, Amy's Kitchen, Consumer Reports, The National Family Farm Coalition, and The National Organic Coalition, to name a few), have filed this petition as a coalition partner on behalf of the Just Label It! campaign. Polls currently show that 90% of Americans agree with labeling of genetically engineered foods.
With the FDA's requirement that food should be labeled unless "unadulterated," it makes perfect sense that genetically modified foods be given label requirements. Something unadulterated means that it is found in its natural form without something being added or taken away. But, when foods are genetically modified, genes are added or taken away. The food becomes adulterated. And for that very reason, it falls under then need for labeling and honest presentation.
From a personal standpoint, I would like to know if my foods have been genetically modified. After reading The Unhealthy Truth
by Robyn O'Brien, I've become concerned about genetically modified foods and whether or not my child should be consuming them. The biggest concern is when your child has allergies. While a link between GMOs and allergies has not been scientifically made, the rise in childhood food allergies has grown dramatically since their introduction in the 1990s. A relationship between changing a food at the genetic level and the human body's inability to recognize the food (thus creating the immune response of an allergic reaction) would make some sense. And while this has not been proven, it raises questions about GMOs. For more accurate information, I really recommend Robyn's book.
Regardless of my concerns about GMOs, I still think that labeling is a must. We as a society should have the right to choose whether or not we want to consume these products and our purchases should inform companies about what we desire. This is a continuing problem with the FDA, considering they hire many former employees of Monsanto (and then, occasionally, Monsanto hires them back), a company pioneering the efforts of genetically engineered foods (oh, and so much more!). Companies that genetically engineer foods don't want consumers to be aware because they are afraid this awareness will make them not choose their products. The argument, as it was when Monsanto demanded that the FDA make it so that farmers who raised cows without bovine growth hormone could not label their milk rBGH free, is that it would imply that there was something wrong with the product and unfairly bias the consumer. Luckily, that labeling has now been allowed, but I find it enraging that a company would argue that lack of information makes for more fair purchasing practices.
As food becomes more complicated in society, the FDA needs to keep up with the changes. Only as recently as 2004 did the FDA require allergens to be labeled. The requirement was added after the Center for Science in the Public Interest submitted a petition similar to the Center for Food Safety's petition. Hopefully, this petition will do the same for GMOs. I hope you sign! If only just to stick it to Monsanto in anyway we can.
Now, this petition is neither for nor against genetically modified foods (or GMOs), but rather, it is asking that the FDA define genetically modified foods such that it requires them to be noted on the nutrition and ingredient labels on food products. One of the purposes of the FDA is to safeguard public health by ensuring that consumers receive safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented food products. So, for example, if a consumer wants to write "low fat" on its product, then the product must meet specifications for being lower in fat. The Center for Food Safety, along with numerous petitioners (including Horizon Organics, Amy's Kitchen, Consumer Reports, The National Family Farm Coalition, and The National Organic Coalition, to name a few), have filed this petition as a coalition partner on behalf of the Just Label It! campaign. Polls currently show that 90% of Americans agree with labeling of genetically engineered foods.
With the FDA's requirement that food should be labeled unless "unadulterated," it makes perfect sense that genetically modified foods be given label requirements. Something unadulterated means that it is found in its natural form without something being added or taken away. But, when foods are genetically modified, genes are added or taken away. The food becomes adulterated. And for that very reason, it falls under then need for labeling and honest presentation.
From a personal standpoint, I would like to know if my foods have been genetically modified. After reading The Unhealthy Truth
by Robyn O'Brien, I've become concerned about genetically modified foods and whether or not my child should be consuming them. The biggest concern is when your child has allergies. While a link between GMOs and allergies has not been scientifically made, the rise in childhood food allergies has grown dramatically since their introduction in the 1990s. A relationship between changing a food at the genetic level and the human body's inability to recognize the food (thus creating the immune response of an allergic reaction) would make some sense. And while this has not been proven, it raises questions about GMOs. For more accurate information, I really recommend Robyn's book.Regardless of my concerns about GMOs, I still think that labeling is a must. We as a society should have the right to choose whether or not we want to consume these products and our purchases should inform companies about what we desire. This is a continuing problem with the FDA, considering they hire many former employees of Monsanto (and then, occasionally, Monsanto hires them back), a company pioneering the efforts of genetically engineered foods (oh, and so much more!). Companies that genetically engineer foods don't want consumers to be aware because they are afraid this awareness will make them not choose their products. The argument, as it was when Monsanto demanded that the FDA make it so that farmers who raised cows without bovine growth hormone could not label their milk rBGH free, is that it would imply that there was something wrong with the product and unfairly bias the consumer. Luckily, that labeling has now been allowed, but I find it enraging that a company would argue that lack of information makes for more fair purchasing practices.
As food becomes more complicated in society, the FDA needs to keep up with the changes. Only as recently as 2004 did the FDA require allergens to be labeled. The requirement was added after the Center for Science in the Public Interest submitted a petition similar to the Center for Food Safety's petition. Hopefully, this petition will do the same for GMOs. I hope you sign! If only just to stick it to Monsanto in anyway we can.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
New Research on Newborn Sleep Needs: Mom's Nightly Presence is Essential
Before you send your child to the hospital nursery at night, take a look at the new research out. Newborns who were separated from their mothers (sleeping in a different room) during the first few days showed higher psychological stress and had their sleep patterns disrupted. The separation created anxiety measured in heart rate changes, respiration changes, and a decrease in rapid eye movement (which is essential for babies' brain development and the reason why they need to go through more REM periods than adults). The article was posted on www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/10/19/newborns-need-to-be-near-their-mothers-at-night/ ).
While I feel that this is not new information, I am extremely glad to see that research is emerging to support the concept. Hey, if even Fox News is reporting it, then that's big strides for attachment parenting. It has been well advised by many sources (La Leche League and Dr. Sears included) that newborns need their mother's presence. It just does not make evolutionary sense that babies would have the ability to operate without their mothers at their most vulnerable moments in life. They are biologically aware of this vulnerability and in desperate need for the feeling of safety.
I remember being in the hospital and having the nurses encourage me to send my baby to the nursery; I needed the rest, they said. My absolute refusal was all they received. It was hard enough for me to let my baby leave the room after my C-section without me, but with having to be sewn back up and all, there was no other choice for me. I took my husband by the hand and made him swear to me that at no moment would our child be without one of us during our hospital stay. He kept his promise. Later, even when the doctors and nurses wanted to take him to the nursery for different medical measurements and what-not, I insisted that they let my husband go with them. I was surprised that there was push-back from the nurses, but inevitably they gave in. Maybe it's being a first time mother, but I just couldn't imagine leaving him to strangers, no matter what their job was.
I'll admit, we did concede once, when we were promised by an overly charismatic nurse that she would bring him back in no more than 15 minutes. 30 minutes later, I began to panic. 40 minutes later, my husband went storming to the nursery where he found our son just sitting there crying while the nurse chatted with other nurses. She told him they were still waiting on a doctor, so he waited with them, comforted our son, and later, we promise ourselves we'd never let the nurses take him without us again (I still curse myself and that nurse when I think back on it).
Babies are so vulnerable at this stage of their lives. It's the first chance they have to learn that we will be there for them and protect them. I'm glad to see that research is now seeing this concept in biological responses in the infant. So, remember you are your child's first line of defense. And, while the world has changed and babies are safe in the nursery, their biological response is still to need the presence of their mother: the only person they actually know at this point.
While I feel that this is not new information, I am extremely glad to see that research is emerging to support the concept. Hey, if even Fox News is reporting it, then that's big strides for attachment parenting. It has been well advised by many sources (La Leche League and Dr. Sears included) that newborns need their mother's presence. It just does not make evolutionary sense that babies would have the ability to operate without their mothers at their most vulnerable moments in life. They are biologically aware of this vulnerability and in desperate need for the feeling of safety.
I remember being in the hospital and having the nurses encourage me to send my baby to the nursery; I needed the rest, they said. My absolute refusal was all they received. It was hard enough for me to let my baby leave the room after my C-section without me, but with having to be sewn back up and all, there was no other choice for me. I took my husband by the hand and made him swear to me that at no moment would our child be without one of us during our hospital stay. He kept his promise. Later, even when the doctors and nurses wanted to take him to the nursery for different medical measurements and what-not, I insisted that they let my husband go with them. I was surprised that there was push-back from the nurses, but inevitably they gave in. Maybe it's being a first time mother, but I just couldn't imagine leaving him to strangers, no matter what their job was.
I'll admit, we did concede once, when we were promised by an overly charismatic nurse that she would bring him back in no more than 15 minutes. 30 minutes later, I began to panic. 40 minutes later, my husband went storming to the nursery where he found our son just sitting there crying while the nurse chatted with other nurses. She told him they were still waiting on a doctor, so he waited with them, comforted our son, and later, we promise ourselves we'd never let the nurses take him without us again (I still curse myself and that nurse when I think back on it).
Babies are so vulnerable at this stage of their lives. It's the first chance they have to learn that we will be there for them and protect them. I'm glad to see that research is now seeing this concept in biological responses in the infant. So, remember you are your child's first line of defense. And, while the world has changed and babies are safe in the nursery, their biological response is still to need the presence of their mother: the only person they actually know at this point.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Music Together: Rhythm, Blues, and Baby
My afternoon mother-child class inspired me to write about something I have found completely amazing: Music Together (www.musictogether.com). Music Together is an early childhood music program (from babies to seven years of age and all learning styles and abilities), designed to teach music to children in a developmental manner and engage parents in musical interactions with their children. The idea is that children are drawn to music but learn best from the modeling of their care-givers. The program teaches more than just fun songs, but uses movement and instruments along with the songs to highlight rhythm, tempo, tone, melody, variation, pitch, and so much more. Essentially, it's a musical development gold mine.
I was first drawn to the Music Together classroom in my area because I needed something to do with my son during the day and, as a stay-at-home mom, I was desperate for contact with the outside world. Yes, I was secretly hoping to meet someone and begin mommy play-dating. I knew about Music Together from my work as a Montessori teacher as my previous school used the program. Having stayed in touch, I knew that the former music teacher (who left my school around the same time I did) was teaching the Music Together classes locally. So, I went on the website and found her class. You can find a class in any area on their website, and they have classes on both weekdays and weekends. It's a little bit pricey (around $200 for an 8 week session), but I knew it was completely worth it. In fact, my son has been experiencing the program since the womb since I was still teaching at the school and attending the music classes while I was pregnant. Throughout the early months of his life, we noticed he has been extremely drawn to music. Now, at seven months, he is still fascinated by it, so the class seemed like the perfect fit. Now, even on his fussiest days, he has a great time.
What I love the most about the class (besides my child's ability to interact with and model other children) is how much it shows me how to engage musically with my son. The songs in the program (you get two CDs and a music book each session) are haunting in that the melodies and rhythms just get stuck in your head. And then you can use them for anything. I can sing about cooking dinner or putting on clothes while accessing an array of melodies to play with. I can also pound out rhythms on objects or make rhythms out of the sounds my son makes (which he loves!). The class has enriched our musical experience as a family, and now my husband and I will find ourselves singing or clapping out rhythms together just to see the joy on our son's face. As he begins to learn to clap, it's amazing to watch him get excited and join in.
There is such value to music development in a child's life. Musical intelligence translates to logic and helps enrich one's mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligences. The making of music is an inherent and basic skill, essential to learning and cultural relating. Music increases concentration, coordination, relaxation, patience, and self-confidence. It's strong effect on intellectual skills and emotional skills is well documented.
All children are born with musical potential. Research has shown, however, that children do not express music the way adults do. It is similar to language development in that it starts out in a "babble" stage. The same way that children learn language by distinguishing its individual sounds, children learn music by distinguishing its pitches, tempo, and rhythms. To develop basic musical competence, they learn best from music in a predictable manner that focuses on simple tunes and beats. In the same way children need an environment rich in language to learn it, they need an environment rich in music to learn that. Additionally, in the same way that children learn language by modeling others, they learn music by modeling others. And, in the same way children learn all things, they learn music best by actively participating and moving.
Music Together is a research-driven program that satisfies all the requirements of musical development in children. If you are looking for a way to connect with other families, it is a great choice for an activity. However, if price or time is an issue, it is possible to create a music-enriched environment for your child in your own home. Here are a few ways to do that:
Find simple music that excites your child rhythmically and melodically. Music Together
does sell a CD of family favorites that you can purchase without joining the program, so it's a good place to start. While classical music or music that you love as an adult are great to expose your child to, it's also important to find children's music that is more simple and broken down for your child.
Have instruments in the house. My husband picked up the guitar a few years ago and I play the piano and the violin. I also recently began to learn to play the mandolin. So, we have a lot of instruments around. We noticed my little guy loves the guitar; it always soothed him as a child. Now, he wants to strum it and my husband makes different chords for him to explore. I will also sit him in front of the piano. At first he explored it tentatively, but now he will bang away and attempt to make sounds like he is singing.
But, even if you don't play an instrument, you can always purchase small instruments for your child to explore. In addition to our instruments, I purchased a small wooden music set for my son. While it says "three years and up" on the box, I ignored that and have allowed him to explore all the instruments. Our kit includes shaking bells, maracas, castanets, a tambourine, and a mini xylophone. He took to the bells and maracas right away. He just recently discovered how to use the tambourine and he's starting to understand the castanets. We also bought some inexpensive shaker eggs that he loves to play with. It's a lot of fun to watch him explore.
And if you don't want to buy instruments...make them out of anything in your house. Bang on pots and pans or turn vitamin bottles into shakers. There are no limits on what you can make music with!
SING. SING. SING. Once you have a few melodies your child likes, use them in different ways and sing about anything you can. Sing words, or nonsense babble, or mimic your child's sounds. Sing about what you are doing. Sing when you are telling your child something. Change the song and come up with new ideas for it with your child (if he/she is old enough). Whatever it is, just sing it. And don't worry, not everything has to rhyme!
Move. When exploring music with your child, find ways to move. Dance to the music, sway scarves to the music, act the story line of the song out, play instruments. Move slow when the music is slow and fast when it is fast. Crawl on the ground when the music is in a low register and dance on tiptoes when the music is in a high register. Watch how the music moves your child and move in the same way. Jump, bounce, run, skip, hop, or twirl. Clap. Highlight the beats you hear. Clap different rhythms. Have a partner clap a pattern while you clap the beat. Let the music move you.
So go, I implore you, be musical with your kids! They will thank you one day.
I was first drawn to the Music Together classroom in my area because I needed something to do with my son during the day and, as a stay-at-home mom, I was desperate for contact with the outside world. Yes, I was secretly hoping to meet someone and begin mommy play-dating. I knew about Music Together from my work as a Montessori teacher as my previous school used the program. Having stayed in touch, I knew that the former music teacher (who left my school around the same time I did) was teaching the Music Together classes locally. So, I went on the website and found her class. You can find a class in any area on their website, and they have classes on both weekdays and weekends. It's a little bit pricey (around $200 for an 8 week session), but I knew it was completely worth it. In fact, my son has been experiencing the program since the womb since I was still teaching at the school and attending the music classes while I was pregnant. Throughout the early months of his life, we noticed he has been extremely drawn to music. Now, at seven months, he is still fascinated by it, so the class seemed like the perfect fit. Now, even on his fussiest days, he has a great time.
What I love the most about the class (besides my child's ability to interact with and model other children) is how much it shows me how to engage musically with my son. The songs in the program (you get two CDs and a music book each session) are haunting in that the melodies and rhythms just get stuck in your head. And then you can use them for anything. I can sing about cooking dinner or putting on clothes while accessing an array of melodies to play with. I can also pound out rhythms on objects or make rhythms out of the sounds my son makes (which he loves!). The class has enriched our musical experience as a family, and now my husband and I will find ourselves singing or clapping out rhythms together just to see the joy on our son's face. As he begins to learn to clap, it's amazing to watch him get excited and join in.
There is such value to music development in a child's life. Musical intelligence translates to logic and helps enrich one's mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligences. The making of music is an inherent and basic skill, essential to learning and cultural relating. Music increases concentration, coordination, relaxation, patience, and self-confidence. It's strong effect on intellectual skills and emotional skills is well documented.
All children are born with musical potential. Research has shown, however, that children do not express music the way adults do. It is similar to language development in that it starts out in a "babble" stage. The same way that children learn language by distinguishing its individual sounds, children learn music by distinguishing its pitches, tempo, and rhythms. To develop basic musical competence, they learn best from music in a predictable manner that focuses on simple tunes and beats. In the same way children need an environment rich in language to learn it, they need an environment rich in music to learn that. Additionally, in the same way that children learn language by modeling others, they learn music by modeling others. And, in the same way children learn all things, they learn music best by actively participating and moving.
Music Together is a research-driven program that satisfies all the requirements of musical development in children. If you are looking for a way to connect with other families, it is a great choice for an activity. However, if price or time is an issue, it is possible to create a music-enriched environment for your child in your own home. Here are a few ways to do that:
Find simple music that excites your child rhythmically and melodically. Music Together
does sell a CD of family favorites that you can purchase without joining the program, so it's a good place to start. While classical music or music that you love as an adult are great to expose your child to, it's also important to find children's music that is more simple and broken down for your child.Have instruments in the house. My husband picked up the guitar a few years ago and I play the piano and the violin. I also recently began to learn to play the mandolin. So, we have a lot of instruments around. We noticed my little guy loves the guitar; it always soothed him as a child. Now, he wants to strum it and my husband makes different chords for him to explore. I will also sit him in front of the piano. At first he explored it tentatively, but now he will bang away and attempt to make sounds like he is singing.
But, even if you don't play an instrument, you can always purchase small instruments for your child to explore. In addition to our instruments, I purchased a small wooden music set for my son. While it says "three years and up" on the box, I ignored that and have allowed him to explore all the instruments. Our kit includes shaking bells, maracas, castanets, a tambourine, and a mini xylophone. He took to the bells and maracas right away. He just recently discovered how to use the tambourine and he's starting to understand the castanets. We also bought some inexpensive shaker eggs that he loves to play with. It's a lot of fun to watch him explore.
And if you don't want to buy instruments...make them out of anything in your house. Bang on pots and pans or turn vitamin bottles into shakers. There are no limits on what you can make music with!
SING. SING. SING. Once you have a few melodies your child likes, use them in different ways and sing about anything you can. Sing words, or nonsense babble, or mimic your child's sounds. Sing about what you are doing. Sing when you are telling your child something. Change the song and come up with new ideas for it with your child (if he/she is old enough). Whatever it is, just sing it. And don't worry, not everything has to rhyme!
Move. When exploring music with your child, find ways to move. Dance to the music, sway scarves to the music, act the story line of the song out, play instruments. Move slow when the music is slow and fast when it is fast. Crawl on the ground when the music is in a low register and dance on tiptoes when the music is in a high register. Watch how the music moves your child and move in the same way. Jump, bounce, run, skip, hop, or twirl. Clap. Highlight the beats you hear. Clap different rhythms. Have a partner clap a pattern while you clap the beat. Let the music move you.
So go, I implore you, be musical with your kids! They will thank you one day.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Iron and the Breastfeeding Baby: To Supplement or Not?
I took my little guy to the pediatrician last week for his six month appointment (although he is actually seven months now). At the end of all the typical measuring, weighing, and checking for developmental behaviors, I was informed that he looks perfect. And then, my pediatrician suggested iron supplements. I asked him why and he told me that after six months infants who breastfeed are in danger of having low iron.
Now, I must tell you, I hate supplements. I am a firm believer that nutrients are best delivered naturally through food. That way, you absorb it properly and in the right amounts without fear of overdosing. Plus, the body recognizes it better that synthetics. Even when I had to take prenatals, I would only take the whole foods versions and not synthetics. So, when I hear that I need to give my son an iron supplement, it scares me. Especially when, while too little iron is bad, too much iron is equally problematic. So, I asked for more information, and I was told that giving extra iron would increase my son's IQ points. The doctor smiled, telling me all parents want their kids to have as much IQ as possible (we live in the DC suburbs, so this is a true statement about a lot of the population around here).
My first instinct at this statement was to be offended, I am SO not one of those parents. What I wanted to know was DOES my son have low iron? That would seem to be the only reason to supplement...and if so, how do we find that out? I was then told that only at nine months do they do a blood test for iron. I am so frustrated because this makes no sense to me. Why would I give him iron without knowing if he's low in iron. I decided to just nod and make my decision outside of the doctor's office. He wasn't forcing it, at least, just suggesting it.
So onto my computer I went. I started with Kelly Mom (http://kellymom.com/) which is an amazing site for all things related to breastfeeding. I figured, this is a breastfeeding issue, so it would be the best place to start. The site has a wealth of information about iron, and so I learned that many people believe it is unnecessary to supplement with iron. The reason for this is that breastmilk has less iron in it that many sources, BUT babies are able to absorb far more from it. Babies can absorb 50-70% of the iron in breastmilk while maybe, at most, 12% of the iron in formula. From what I've researched, it appears that the reason pediatricians have recommended iron supplementing is that it has been accepted medical knowledge for the last few decades that babies come out of the womb with iron stores and these stores are depleted at six months, so iron supplementation has been deemed necessary at that point. However, more current research seems to say that these stores are more than adequate for almost the first 12 months...suggesting that babies need iron supplementation after 12 months, which they can get from solids they are eating.
Now, some children are more at risk and likely in need of supplementation. These risk factors including being born premature, a birth weight of less than 6.5 pounds, babies born to mothers with poorly controlled diabetes, and babies fed neither breast milk nor fortified formula. I looked but did not find a caesarean birth as a risk factor. I did read in La Leche League's Womanly Art of Breastfeeding that babies whose cords were cut before they stopped pulsing (which includes caesarean babies) do not receive their entire blood supply, however, they did not find that linked to a need for iron supplementation.
I spread my search out, as I hate to get information from just one source, and found that some research suggests that exclusive breastfeeding for the first seven months without supplementation actually leads to babies having less chance of anemia as children. I also learned that iron supplements can increase bacteria in young children and lower natural iron absorption. There is some research that also suggests that babies learn to live on lower stores of iron through the natural breastfeeding process.
Still, there is all the other research out there that led to my pediatrician's recommendation to me. The research, done in the 1970s, found that only in the first six months do babies have iron stores. So there is research stating that babies don't have enough iron after six months and other research that says they do. As I looked through more research I found a study done in the 1980s that found a risk of needing iron supplementation. Only 6 out of 36 infants needed iron supplementation when exclusively breastfed for the first nine months. So that makes the risk a roughly 16% chance of needing supplementation, according to that study. This seems to fit with the information I found on increased risk factors.
Then there is research that suggests that babies after six months can benefit from iron supplementation, helping both their intellectual and physical development. Now, in my opinion, after looking at how they did their research, it seems to highlight that anemia would cause problems for this kind of development. But, as to what my pediatrician said, that iron supplementation can add a few extra IQ points, I just don't think that makes any sense. I go back to what I learned in the book Nurture Shock (a FABULOUS book by the way, but more on that later); IQ changes for children and grows at different points in time. One child's IQ may peak later than another's, so I find it hard to believe that research could really properly conclude that iron supplementation would benefit IQ. They would have to account for that in their measurements of IQ, and I think they would find that difficult. I think this research more accurately states that anemia can cause problems in intellectual and physical development.
I found another study done in Chile that looked at non-anemic children and found that children fed with highly-iron-fortified formula actual tested with lower IQs, and more problematic visual-motor integration and spatial memory. Again, I question how IQs can be tested...but this research does highlight that there may be just as much of a problem with too much iron as too little iron. And they don't seem to know how much is too much.
So, after putting this all together, I continue to be very skeptical about iron supplementation. Unfortunately, making sure I have enough iron doesn't affect my breast milk. So, at the end of the day, I'm going to stick with nature on this one and hope that my breast milk and introducing iron-rich foods will be what my baby needs. I will know if I made the right choice in a few months.
Now, I must tell you, I hate supplements. I am a firm believer that nutrients are best delivered naturally through food. That way, you absorb it properly and in the right amounts without fear of overdosing. Plus, the body recognizes it better that synthetics. Even when I had to take prenatals, I would only take the whole foods versions and not synthetics. So, when I hear that I need to give my son an iron supplement, it scares me. Especially when, while too little iron is bad, too much iron is equally problematic. So, I asked for more information, and I was told that giving extra iron would increase my son's IQ points. The doctor smiled, telling me all parents want their kids to have as much IQ as possible (we live in the DC suburbs, so this is a true statement about a lot of the population around here).
My first instinct at this statement was to be offended, I am SO not one of those parents. What I wanted to know was DOES my son have low iron? That would seem to be the only reason to supplement...and if so, how do we find that out? I was then told that only at nine months do they do a blood test for iron. I am so frustrated because this makes no sense to me. Why would I give him iron without knowing if he's low in iron. I decided to just nod and make my decision outside of the doctor's office. He wasn't forcing it, at least, just suggesting it.
So onto my computer I went. I started with Kelly Mom (http://kellymom.com/) which is an amazing site for all things related to breastfeeding. I figured, this is a breastfeeding issue, so it would be the best place to start. The site has a wealth of information about iron, and so I learned that many people believe it is unnecessary to supplement with iron. The reason for this is that breastmilk has less iron in it that many sources, BUT babies are able to absorb far more from it. Babies can absorb 50-70% of the iron in breastmilk while maybe, at most, 12% of the iron in formula. From what I've researched, it appears that the reason pediatricians have recommended iron supplementing is that it has been accepted medical knowledge for the last few decades that babies come out of the womb with iron stores and these stores are depleted at six months, so iron supplementation has been deemed necessary at that point. However, more current research seems to say that these stores are more than adequate for almost the first 12 months...suggesting that babies need iron supplementation after 12 months, which they can get from solids they are eating.
Now, some children are more at risk and likely in need of supplementation. These risk factors including being born premature, a birth weight of less than 6.5 pounds, babies born to mothers with poorly controlled diabetes, and babies fed neither breast milk nor fortified formula. I looked but did not find a caesarean birth as a risk factor. I did read in La Leche League's Womanly Art of Breastfeeding that babies whose cords were cut before they stopped pulsing (which includes caesarean babies) do not receive their entire blood supply, however, they did not find that linked to a need for iron supplementation.
I spread my search out, as I hate to get information from just one source, and found that some research suggests that exclusive breastfeeding for the first seven months without supplementation actually leads to babies having less chance of anemia as children. I also learned that iron supplements can increase bacteria in young children and lower natural iron absorption. There is some research that also suggests that babies learn to live on lower stores of iron through the natural breastfeeding process.
Still, there is all the other research out there that led to my pediatrician's recommendation to me. The research, done in the 1970s, found that only in the first six months do babies have iron stores. So there is research stating that babies don't have enough iron after six months and other research that says they do. As I looked through more research I found a study done in the 1980s that found a risk of needing iron supplementation. Only 6 out of 36 infants needed iron supplementation when exclusively breastfed for the first nine months. So that makes the risk a roughly 16% chance of needing supplementation, according to that study. This seems to fit with the information I found on increased risk factors.
Then there is research that suggests that babies after six months can benefit from iron supplementation, helping both their intellectual and physical development. Now, in my opinion, after looking at how they did their research, it seems to highlight that anemia would cause problems for this kind of development. But, as to what my pediatrician said, that iron supplementation can add a few extra IQ points, I just don't think that makes any sense. I go back to what I learned in the book Nurture Shock (a FABULOUS book by the way, but more on that later); IQ changes for children and grows at different points in time. One child's IQ may peak later than another's, so I find it hard to believe that research could really properly conclude that iron supplementation would benefit IQ. They would have to account for that in their measurements of IQ, and I think they would find that difficult. I think this research more accurately states that anemia can cause problems in intellectual and physical development.
I found another study done in Chile that looked at non-anemic children and found that children fed with highly-iron-fortified formula actual tested with lower IQs, and more problematic visual-motor integration and spatial memory. Again, I question how IQs can be tested...but this research does highlight that there may be just as much of a problem with too much iron as too little iron. And they don't seem to know how much is too much.
So, after putting this all together, I continue to be very skeptical about iron supplementation. Unfortunately, making sure I have enough iron doesn't affect my breast milk. So, at the end of the day, I'm going to stick with nature on this one and hope that my breast milk and introducing iron-rich foods will be what my baby needs. I will know if I made the right choice in a few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)