(blogged by HHI Public Information Officer Liz Kimmerly)

I recently stumbled upon an episode from This American Life called "Unconditional Love". I found it to be so interesting and it really helped to open my mind to the broader history of childhood bonding and its significance in the history America's child development and Hands to Hearts International's work.

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." HH The Dalai Lama

DS is in first grade and has so far done pretty well.  He's freaky smart (multiplying two digits in  his head, adding three sets of three digits, doing addition and subtraction of negative numbers, etc) but his social skills are weak, to say the least.  I blame it partially on his early years- DH was a SAHD and they had very limited opportunities to interact with other kids since most of the moms in playgroup tended to assume he was looking for a little action on the side rather than just looking for a playdate.  Mostly DS has been blissfully ignorant of his lack of skills- moving happily between groups of kids, not noticing that most didn't seem thrilled to have him join their groups.  But today his sister (4) got her third birthday party invitation in 2 months and the lightbulb switched on- he doesn't get invited to birthday parties.

This Sunday's Boston Globe Magazine had an exposé on the Better Baby Institute, which claims to have created a method for accelerating babies' development. Physical therapist Glenn Doman founded the Institute to help brain-damaged children recover function, and he (along with daughter Janet) is now applying his findings to well infants and toddlers. "We are persuaded that every child born has, at the instant of birth, a greater potential intelligence than Leonardo da Vinci ever used."

It's a statement full of promise, but when it leads to three-year-olds being drilled with flashcards of the Mona Lisa, Maria de Medici, and other famous works of art (or animals like the two-spotted ladybird beetle and the periodical cicada), or a one-year-old wearing a pedometer so her parents can see how her daily distances match up to the Institute's benchmark of half a mile in 18 minutes, one wonders if the supposed boost is worth the cost.

In contrast, Globe author Neil Swidey cites a number of studies showing that children with the earliest letter, number, and word skills are not necessarily those who do best in the long run. Pushing too hard can in fact hinder development. If we ask children to do something for which their brains are not ready, says Maryanne Wolf, professor of child development at Tufts University, "You run the risk of making a child feel like a failure before they've even begun."

I'm a skeptic when it comes to special "methods" for improving a young child's intelligence. Titles like the Domans' How To Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence, How To Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge, and How To Teach Your Baby To Be Physically Superb make me cringe. Read to a child. Expose them to a variety of objects and experiences. Incorporate letters, numbers, and music into your daily activities, but don't obsess about it. Make sure they play and socialize. Beyond that, I don't think there is much we can do to stack the deck.

One of the many other things that bothers me about programs like the Domans' is the focus on rote identification and a selectivity about what constitutes intelligence. Is a child who can identify Claude Debussy really any smarter than one who can identify Cinderella or Thomas the Tank Engine? Does it matter that the child can't put the former into any kind of context, but can relate to Cinderella or Thomas as characters in stories they've heard? In a toddler, knowing Debussy or the Mona Lisa is not intelligence, but mere parroting. Yes, they'll learn some language skills through that process of parroting, but unless they also have a Mona Lisa doll and friends with similar toys, they'll get a lot more practical use from knowing Thomas or Cinderella. (I hate the whole mass-marketing approach to children's toys, I really do—but I also realize there's social value in being able to talk about these characters with the kid next door.) In some ways, Doman's method is the memorize-for-the-test approach engendered by No Child Left Behind, taken to its early extreme. If your children memorize enough, they will pass. If they start early, maybe they will even become geniuses.

What say you? Are intelligence-improvement programs like the Domans' (or the Baby Einstein DVDs) worth it? How can we make reasonable efforts to ensure our children are learning, and challenge them to fulfill their potential, but not push them beyond where they are mentally and physically ready to go?

(Crossposted at Mombian.)

DVDs and videos such as "Baby Einstein" and "Brainy Baby" may hinder, rather than help babies acquire language skills, according to a new study published in the Journal of Pediatrics.

The scientists found that for every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants understood an average of six to eight fewer words than infants who did not watch them. Baby DVDs and videos had no positive or negative effect on the vocabularies on toddlers 17 to 24 months of age.

This adds to a growing pile of skepticism about such videos and their educational benefits, despite what President Bush might say. You'll recall he praised Baby Einstein founder—and Republican National Committee donor—Julie Aigner-Clark during his State of the Union address this past January. He's hardly one to be the judge of what makes for good verbal skills, methinks.

(Crossposted on Mombian.)

My ex-husband and I share custody of Karina. He has her every other weekend, and a couple of days during the week. This past weekend was the ex's time with Karina.  By the time I got to my parents' house to pick up Cristian, Karina was already gone. Cristian was a mess, missing his big sister. My ex-husband has been really great about including Cristian in his time with Karina, but Cristian has flute lessons on Friday, and so he was left behind.  

So when Saturday rolled around and I needed a sitter for the Erasure concert, I called the ex, who was more than happy to have Cristian over. After the concert, I was heading towards the ex's house to pick Cristian up, when I got a call. It was Cristian, asking if he could spend the night at the ex's house. I repeatedly asked Cristian if he was sure this was what he wanted to do, to which he responded, "I'm sure." I got home, took off my jeans that were tight around the knees and instantly fell to sleep. At around 3 a.m. I got a call. It was Cristian... "Can you pick me up?" I got up, and drove the 20 minutes to pick up my crying son.

The next day, I was talking to my mother during breakfast and said, "Guess what happened last night?" Then, I told her the story. She said, "Well, he's definitely YOUR son." Then proceeded to remind me of the time I asked to spend the week at my cousin's house, who lived in San Diego, then called HER at 3 a.m. to come pick me up. She INSISTS that she got in the car and drove the 2 hours to get me. I remember it differently. I remember her saying, "YOU said your were sure that you wanted to stay. YOU'RE STAYING! We'll see you next weekend." I remember that first night as being HELL; but I remember the rest of the week as one of the best weeks of my life.

So, here's my question...should I have allowed Cristian to make good on his promise to be ok spending the night away from home by leaving him there? When is it time to start cutting the apron strings?

I have a confession to make...

Between this site and news sites, such as CNN, where incidentally Michael Moore got very confrontational with Wolf Blitzer, (and in case you missed it, here's the link so you can check it out!!) I also visit gossip sites.

I visit sites such as People.com, Perezhilton.com, and thesuperficial.com, where I found this story. I apologize to you ladies in advance, as this story has a bit to do with Paris Hilton...and I know that we, just like Mika Brzezinski of MNSBC have had more than our share of her!! My only reason for taking you down this Paris Hilton path is to ask if you are just as bothered as I am to see the 4-year-old in the video, who claims to be Paris Hilton's biggest fan...and the parents who took the little girl to Paris' house to wait for a glimpse of the "celebrity".

Thesuperficial.com states:

This is Paris Hilton's biggest fan, who also happens to be a 4-year-old girl from Florida. She was waiting outside Paris' home last night for a chance to meet her, and while waiting started posing like Paris. Which is absolutely the creepiest thing you'll see today. When Paris finally came out, the two posed a bit more before the little girl started crying from being near Paris Hilton all the flashes.

Watch the video and judge for yourself, then please share your thoughts!!

How many times have you made excuses for your child? He throws a tantrum? You say, "Oh, he's just tired/hungry/not feeling well..." I know that I've been known to be guilty of it! When is it no longer acceptable to make excuses for your child? When should we start teaching them accountability and responsibility? Should they be 3? How about 5? Or...perhaps 25?

Nicole Richie, 25, Reality TV-Star and Paparazzi Magnet is due to stand trial for a DUI for driving THE WRONG WAY in the carpool lane on the 134 freeway in Los Angeles. Her father Lionel Richie thinks it's no big deal:

He said in an interview with the USA Today newspaper: "She keeps apologizing to me. I told her, 'You're doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing to your father at this age.' "

He additionally said:

The pop legend also thinks today's stars are subject to far more scrutiny than he ever was when he shot to fame in the 70s with Motown band the Commodores.

He said: "There's just so much information out there right now - MySpace, cell phones, the internet. If we had had all that when the Commodores were around, God only knows what my mother and father would have seen."

Hmmmm...

So MotherTalkers, what do you think? When do we stop making excuses for our children and make them take responsibility for their actions/mistakes?

I spent the majority of my Fourth of July with Erika and her family. While her husband took Cristian to see Transformers, Erika and I went shopping. We then met up with "the boys" and had a late lunch/early dinner at a local restaurant.

During the course of our meal a family walked in, which included a mom, dad, and three daughters, whose ages appeared to be approximately 11, 9 and 6. They all had what appeared to be make-up on their face. They wore tube tops, very short mini-skirts (which barely covered their bums) and the highest of heels. It was hard not to stare. A few minutes later, grandma and grandpa joined them. I thought for sure either grandma or grandpa would say something. They did...they said, "You look beautiful!!"

HUH??

I understand that it was a "special occasion"...4th of July, after all, which was apparent in the girls dress, as they were all wearing red, white and blue. Granted, very inappropriate red, white and blue.

Ironically, the girls were all provided with children's menus, which included crayons, and proceeded to color very happily.

Am I wrong to think that this was completely inappropriate? When is it ok to allow your children to dress like grown 20-year-olds at your local disco???

Oh, those developmental milestone charts, how they could drive a mom to distraction.  Here's Madeline Holler's story from Babble.com about her two children and how different they were in their first two years:

My daughter Beatrice beat the developmental milestone charts almost every time. "Newborns smile at six weeks of age," the baby books said. Beatrice smiled in five. "Picks up small objects at the half-year mark," noted a pamphlet in the pediatrician's waiting room. She practically flicked Cheerios in the air and caught them on her tongue at five months old. Beatrice walked well before she turned one...

And why shouldn't Beatrice have been so advanced? I was doing everything right: breastfeeding exclusively, talking to her constantly. I carried her everywhere strapped to me in a sling, a crown of thorns balanced carefully on my head.

Then along came her second child, Frances:

Here comes Frances. Or, more aptly, there she sits. Our fifteen-month-old. Not walking. Barely standing on her own. Just perched on her haunches, clapping at a pair of strappy Weeboks still tagged and in the box...

There's nothing clinically wrong with Frances. Her pediatrician is not concerned. But according to the charts, she's below average. My child? Below average?

The New York Times has a good article about "redshirting" trends in the country, called When Should a Kid Start Kindergarten?

It's pretty good if you're interested. I never even heard the term until NJmom mentioned it a few weeks ago, and now I'm planning to do it to my California son this coming Fall. He turns 5 in mid-November, so we'll wait until 2008 to start him on the school track. For the upcoming school year, we have a fine pre-school and lots of friends his own age to play with.

Upon reading the article, I was especially interested to see that a young kindergartener (age 4) generally has two strikes against him/her in our country: being much much younger than a classroom full of redshirted kids who are often 12-15 months older, and generally not being as affluent as the redshirted peers, who were able to take advantage of pre-school. Hmmm...never thought of those things before. There are lots of pros and cons to the redshirting trend. What do you think about it?

A bevy of interesting articles in the past few days:

• The Christian Science Monitor examines proposed changes to the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As lawmakers debate its reauthorization, they are considering whether the evaluation of schools should emphasize progress, rather than merely achieving certain goals.
• Across the pond, educators in the U.K. are also considering changing school testing to focus on progress rather than preparation for high-stakes tests at set stages, BBC News reports. The plan would also stress individual progress and provide opportunities for individual tuition to students who are falling behind.
• Even those who do make it through the rigors of higher education may fall short in their knowledge of personal finance, however, the Christian Science Monitor claims. They offer some suggestions for recent college grads on basic budgeting and saving.
• The Christian Science Monitor also reports on the growing number of mothers attending college while they still have young children. Not many colleges make provision for housing undergraduate mothers, nor for childcare, though some are now taking steps to change that.
• Gaining further education can benefit not only mothers but also their children, says the BBC News. A recent study by the Institute of Education found that mothers with higher education and family incomes reported more interactions with their children—and it is parental interactions, more than specific toys or numbers of books, that impact child development.
• Income and education don't always guarantee good parenting, however, and the Times Online takes on middle-class parents who overemphasize toddler classes and toys at the expense of parenting attention. (See also this Atlantic Monthly article from last fall about the dubious benefits of Baby Einstein and its ilk.)
• Finally, the New York Times reminds us there are more paths to success and measures of excellence than getting into an elite college.

(Crossposted at Mombian.)