Your baby's politics.

You probably don't think your baby is old enough yet to develop a political philosophy.  Think again, and consider the cases of Baby A and Baby B.


Baby A, who is an only child, lives in a big house on a big lot on a quiet street on the edge of town.  Aside from the occasional sound of a vacuum cleaner or lawn mower, Baby A hears few sounds not produced either directly or indirectly by Baby A.  That is, in part, because of the white noise machine which drowns out noises.  More importantly, A's parents subscribe to an educational-toy-of-the-month club, so every few weeks, beginning with the cute little Busy Booties® from Month 1, Baby A gets another new toy expertly designed to meet Baby A's needs in a manner most perfectly suited to Baby A's current level of cognitive development.  The first instructional unit has focused on the concept of Cause and Effect, and Baby A has learned that a shake of Baby A's left foot, thanks to the red Busy Booty®, will produce an amusing rattling sound, a shake of Baby A's right foot, thanks to the green Busy Booty® will produce a pleasant ringing bell sound, a squeeze of the purple plush octopus will produce a squeaky sound tuned to one of eight tones of the C major scale, and a tug on the blue ducky will cause music to play and the mobile over Baby A's crib to turn.  When Baby A cries, one of Baby A's parents hears, thanks to the house intercom, and quickly comes and removes Baby A from the crib and solves whatever problem is bothering Baby A.  As Baby A gets older and learns to talk, A's parents will usually give A whatever A asks for.


Then there is Baby B.  Baby B lives in an apartment on a busy street in the middle of the city.  Baby B shares a room with two older siblings.  The neighbors in the apartment above Baby B's room are also noisy people who often play loud music not requested by Baby B.  Because of the liquor store and the two taverns within a block of Baby B's apartment, Baby B's sleep is frequently interrupted by the sound of breaking glass or drunken brawls from outside the window.  Baby B also hears random sirens, gunshots, and barking dogs.  When Baby B cries, Baby B's parents might respond, but they may both be too busy with the other children.  As Baby B gets older and learns to talk,  B will speak out about what B wants, but B's parents will not usually be able to give B what B asks for.


One of these children, barring the parents' deliberate effort to teach otherwise, will probably grow up to be a free market Republican who believes that the world is a fair place and that with enough effort, one can accomplish whatever one wants to in one's life, so people all deserve to be exactly as rich or poor as they are.  


The other child, barring the parents' deliberate effort to teach otherwise, will probably grow up to be a Democrat who believes the world is unfair and stacked against many of us, and that forces beyond our control often deny hardworking people the rewards they deserve, through no fault of their own.  


I invite you to guess which is which.


Both of these children may grow up unable to understand how the other can possibly have a view of the world so different from their own. 

Are You All Right?

You're at the playground and your child falls off the swing.
You're driving down the street and you hit a bicyclist.
You're walking through the mall and you see somebody lying on the floor.


What do you do?  If you're like most people I know, you ask the person "Are you all right?"


Please don't.  Nobody wants to tell you that no, they're not all right.  They might not be all right, but it's often not until a few hours or even days later that the pain becomes too much, and a visit to the emergency room reveals something wrong.  I have had the experience of falling or otherwise having accidents, and people have immediately asked me if I was all right.  They didn't take me to the hospital and wait for the results of the x-rays.  They didn't check for welts and bruises to develop, or even wait to see if there was any blood.  When they ask you, "Are you all right?" they're not really asking you to give them a report on the extent of your injuries, but they're asking for permission to walk away and forget about you.  If you tell them you're all right, you let them off the hook.  They may later argue that you absolved them of all responsibility when you told them, five seconds after your accident, that there's nothing wrong with you.  If you continue to experience pain and later turn out to have a broken bone or chipped tooth, they will resent you for changing your mind about the accident.  Perhaps they'll even think you're lying and making up a new problem that wasn't there immediately after the accident.


This is all especially true with children.  They may be unwilling to tell you they're not all right, because they feel like they've failed or been a loser or given the "wrong" answer.


The best thing to ask somebody who has had an accident is "Are you hurt?"  Doing so trains the child to take time and think systematically about how everything feels, and it trains you to be more compassionate toward others.  It also gives the child or injured party permission to be honest.

9-11, Ten Years After

I should probably write something in honor of the multiple tragedies we now call "Nine Eleven" because everyone else is doing it.  It always seems strange to me the way people refer to events as happening either before September Eleventh or ten years after September Eleventh when we have a September Eleventh every year.  I pity the poor people who have birthdays tomorrow and know that now their birthday will always be a day that will live in infamy.


I remember what I did that morning.  I had taken the children to school, and I had to drop some old clothes off at the thrift shop, and then I had plans to see my lawyer to deal with some paperwork.   My husband had died two weeks earlier, and I wanted to donate some of his things to charity.  They had played a story at around 6:20 on NPR's Morning Edition about new teachers, and I had missed part of it.  I knew they would rebroadcast the program and repeat that particular story at 8:20.  I was in the thrift shop parking lot waiting for them to open, expecting to hear the voice of Claudio Sanchez, NPR's education reporter.  Instead, NPR interrupted its regularly scheduled program to bring us the horrendous news.  Having gathered my family around my husband's bedside and said good-bye to him, I couldn't help thinking of the families whose loved ones were taken from them that morning without warning, without getting their affairs in order, without any opportunity to make peace with each other.


We might focus on what The September Eleventh Attacks mean for parents with young children.  I would argue that although we might expect nightmares and emotional trauma in our current teenagers and young adults, today's toddlers have been spared all that, and we should keep things that way.  For those of us old enough to remember where we were on September 11, 2001, November 22, 1963, or December 7, 1941, these events were the defining event of a generation.  But for today's primary school children, 2001 is history as ancient as  or March 25, 1911 or April 12, 1861 or October 14, 1066.  We can't expect very small children to ever feel the loss of those we remember before 2001, not on a personal or a national level, nor to feel the connection many of us feel with others who also lost people we loved.  Let us not fault them if they can't get excited about all the memorial services and speeches, the flag-waving, and the rhetoric, and let us not use these children as an excuse to whip up hatred against people in other countries, nor blame them for being insufficiently patriotic on account of the World Trade Center's destruction.

How many of us ever consider the plight of the English during WWII?  During the Battle of Britain, or the "Blitz" as many called it, German bombers flew over London every night. Large swaths of that city were destroyed, and if you walk down the streets there today admiring the beautiful eighteenth century buildings, you'll see the random post-WWII building that doesn't fit into the cityscape.  London's urban renewal projects owe a great deal to the Luftwaffe.  We should consider the terror the English people felt in 1940 and the fear and uncertainty they must have suffered over the outcome of that war.  Some families sent their children off to live with strangers in the country, not sure they'd ever see them again.  Some spent many a night packed together and trying to sleep in the Underground stations, just hoping that when the noise above them and the all clear sounded, their houses would not be reduced to rubble.


When I got to my lawyer's office that fateful morning in 2001, he was watching the television coverage from the World Trade Center, and he said, "Now Americans know how Israelis feel."  We may expect terrible things to happen in other countries, but I believe the sheer novelty of such an attack on the United States of all countries was as much a part of people's outrage as the death and destruction themselves.  Yet since 2001, nothing similar has happened again.


For some reason, Americans have developed an astonishing willingness to milk a ten-year-old tragedy for all it's worth.  Somehow, I doubt that they marked December 7, 1951 with all the somber commemorations we're seeing now.  I would like our country to move past 2001.  What many Americans don't realize is that people around the world and even around this country face tragedy all the time.  We don't pay attention to the wars and conflicts being fought in Congo, Mexico, Sudan, Yemen, or to the drought and famine in Ethiopia.  The storms, floods, and earthquakes of a few years back may not make headline news anymore, but people are still suffering.  Even the small-scale tragedies that affect some families in our own cities, the grinding poverty, hunger, and homelessness, and the drive-by shootings escape our notice.  What makes September 11, 2001 special is that it was a day when the nation suffered an organized attack from outsiders, something we haven't experienced as a nation since the early 1800's.  Since 1814, we have made a point of fighting all our wars on somebody else's soil.

Perhaps it's time for those making all this fuss to grow up. 

Let's go to the grocery store!

Do you dread shopping with your toddler?  I remember once having an accident in that A & P where my mother used to take me.  I was having a bit too much fun scooting around with the grocery cart, and I fell and got a bloody lip.  I still have the scar, so when I see children standing up in grocery carts, I always want to say something to the parents.

Taking a two-year-old to the store can be a series of disasters, especially if you just expect the child to sit quietly in the cart and not embarrass you in public.  It can also be a tremendously educational and entertainment experience, if you plan it well, but it takes more than just a shopping list.  A little creativity can go a long way.  So does a little talk before you leave the house about what kind of behavior is appropriate or inappropriate in public and what rewards a child can earn by behaving appropriately.  Maybe you have one of those "rewards card" things the supermarkets give out to encourage customer loyalty.  You could create a rewards card to keep track of for your child's good behavior.  As for customer loyalty, though, I would suggest mixing it up and shopping at different stores sometimes.  That way your child can learn about choices and competition and get a better understanding of the community in which you live.

It helps to plan ahead, decide what you're going to serve for dinner for the week, and shop accordingly.  If you can plan the week's meals around foods that are on sale, you can save some money.  Walking into the store with a list lets you save time, and it lets you show your child how business-like and in charge you can be. Let your child have some input in creating the shopping list.  As I've said before, you can negotiate over the questionable items.  That way, you can not only help your child develop problem-solving skills, but also get some behavioral concessions out of your child.  Don't be afraid to say, "Cookies aren't very good for us.  How about some fruit instead?  Or a trip to the library?"  

Try to schedule your trip to the store after a nap and meal so the child isn't too cranky, and take along some emergency supplies, like snack food in your own container or a small toy on a tether.  As for feeding your child food from the store before paying for it, yes grapes and snap peas are healthier than m&m's, but remember you're setting an example, right?  A very small child won't understand the difference between unit pricing and bulk pricing.  It's a good idea to avoid shopping on an empty stomach, because then you'll be less likely to waste time and buy junk you don't need on impulse.

Of course everybody needs to eat.  Once you're in the store, you can use your need for food to strengthen all kinds of educational skills and teach all kinds of lessons,depending on the age of the child, from reading readiness to vocabulary, colors, shapes, math, money, economics, geography, health, nutrition, self-discipline, social skills, and decision making.  Depending on the age of the children, you can assign them "jobs" like finding the apples or letting you know whether the flat green vegetable you're looking at is a carrot or not.  You can compare prices between brands.  If you take a little world map along, you can note where the bananas, blueberries, kiwi fruit, and all the other foods come from.

When my children were very young, my husband and I used to go shopping in the evening and make it a family affair.  We would take turns, one of us pushing the cart with the baby in it, while the other one took our toddler on a walk through the aisles.  I decided a three-year-old would do less damage in the toilet paper and fabric softener aisles than in the spaghetti sauce and pickle aisles.  We made a game of counting all the babies and teddy bears we saw on all the product packaging.  It got us out of the house, it kept the kid busy, and it helped her get some math practice.  Furthermore, it was a way to avoid arguments ("What do you mean, you forgot to get dish detergent?" "You didn't tell me what kind of lettuce you wanted!", etc.) or paying a babysitter, or spending an evening as couch potatoes.

If you have another adult, or another child old enough to walk around the store without supervision, you can even make it a family game night and organize teams for a scavenger hunt.

• Let's see if we can find something in a big blue box that has the first letter of your name on it.
• Now let's look for something we want to eat for breakfast, and it's shaped like circles.
• Next, we need something in a round box, and it has a picture of a man in a big hat on it.
• How about something good to drink that doesn't have high fructose corn syrup in it?
• And when we've got everything on our list, we'll meet Mommy by the orange juice. 

You can't always get what you want, part 3: But if you try sometimes, you just might get ahead of people who don't.

According to a landmark study based on data collected at Perry Nursery School in Ypsilanti, Michigan back in the 1960's, children who received just a few hours of preschool education a week outperform those who didn't. The Perry study led to the creation of the federal Head Start program.  

I heard a pair of very interesting stories about preschool on National Public Radio last week.  The first one, although it said nothing I didn't already know, spoke to me personally, because I attended Perry for two years.  It seems now that the preschool advantage remains with children not only through high school, but into adulthood.  More about that another time.  I recommend that people click on the link and listen to the story.  

However, what I found particularly novel and interesting was something one school administrator said in the other story.  It seems that because many New York parents want their children to have all the advantages, competition for expensive (would you believe $30,000?) high-status preschools is fierce.  The preschool interview is now as stressful as a job interview, and several of the experts featured in the story offered advice on how to ace this interview.  For example, if a child visiting a preschool sees a toy truck on a shelf across the room, what should the best child for that school do?   

The answer surprised me.  I grew up, as did many people I know who don't make lots of money, with parents who subscribed to the "No, you can't do that" school of parenting.  I would think a polite well-behaved child would admire the truck from afar, but not go all "gimme, gimme, I WANT it!" and grab at it.  Perhaps that is why I'm not pulling in a six figure income.  It seems the "correct" response to an appealing toy that this school wants to see in an applicant is, in fact, some variation on the "gimme, gimme, I WANT it!" response.  

After all, preschools have toys so that the children there can play with them.  A normal healthy toddler should have the curiosity to investigate new toys.  A child who is too shy to express an interest in the toys available at preschool might grow up to become an adult too shy to stand up for her (or maybe his, but face it; it's usually her) rights.  A child can certainly toddle across a room and touch a toy, especially ask for permission to play with it, without doing violence to others or trampling on their rights.  Do we want our children to go through life believing, "They'll never let me do that"?  Or, "I can't do that"? or "That's too challenging for me to succeed"?  Or worse yet, "Only other people can have that, but I'm not good enough to deserve it"?  

By all means, we should teach our children to respect other people, but we must not forget to teach them self-respect.  Let us not be afraid to raise self-confident children who have the courage to express their feelings, who believe in and can stand up for themselves. 

You can't always get what you want, part 2: Avoiding power struggles with toddlers

One of my most vivid childhood memories was of going to the A & P with my mother and wanting one of the big boxed dolls they displayed on the top shelf above the food in aisle 8.  I don't remember whether I whined and acted up and gave my mother grief, but of course these beautiful dolls were way too expensive for my parents to buy, so I never got one.  I did get one doll I loved and played with for years, and I did learn to forgive my parents for not getting me a big beautiful doll from the A & P.  As disappointing as my childhood was, I knew I had it better than the millions of children around the world who went to bed hungry every night or whose lives were ravaged by war, disease, and oppressive political regimes.   Yet I have seen plenty of small children over the years carrying on in the grocery store whining and begging for toys and special treats, and I began to dread those trips to the supermarket that I would have when I had my own children.  

Here are some of the possible responses to a child who pulls a big loud embarrassing I WANT IT! tantrum in the store:

• "No you don't, so shut up!"
• "No you don't, so shut up! [SLAP!]"
• "Yes, of course you do, and Mommy loves you, so she's going to give it to you--Yes she is!--because nothing is too good for Mommy's wittle pwecious!  Dis world just wevolves awound Mommy's wittle pwecious--Yes it does!"
• "I understand you want it, but if I refuse to spoil you by giving in to all your demands."

Which answer do I recommend?   None of the above.  

If you don't give in to a child's demands, it's best to give your child a good reason.  There are some very good reasons to say no:

• We can't afford it.
• We don't have space for it in our house.
• I don't approve of it, because it's stupid or against our religion, or harmful for you, or of bad quality, or manufactured under unfair conditions by a company I'm boycotting on moral grounds.
• Your grandmother and I already have secret plans to surprise you with one on your birthday. (But you probably can't tell your child that.)

And there are bad reasons:

• I don't believe you're good enough to deserve it.
• This is going to be one power struggle I insist on winning, so there!

Sometimes  it's useful to go beyond the "Because I'm the Mom, and I say so" argument.  Doing so helps a child develop thinking skills and respect for the intelligence of both of you.  Additionally, sometimes it's useful to understand why the child is asking for something.  It could be: 

• because the child truly wants the toy
• because the child wants your attention
• because the child wants you to recognize and respect his or her feelings.

In other words, getting the toy might not be the real issue.  Your child might be satisfied with 

• "I know you want that.  It does look like fun, doesn't it?  And I'm sorry, but I can't get it for you today."  

That approach can work with a lot of other things in life, too:  

• "I know you don't enjoy buckling into your car seat, but you don't have a choice about it."
• "I know it's cold out here.  The weather is one of those things we can't do much about.  Fortunately, the bus will be here soon, and it will be warmer."
• "I know you wish it wasn't necessary to get your tetanus shot, and it makes me sad to see you stuck with needles, too, but it's the only way we can protect you from a disease that's even worse, and it will be over quickly." 
• "I know you loved that book, but the library needs it back today so somebody else can have a turn to read it.  Let's try to check it out again soon, all right?  Or should we buy our own copy?"

As for treats and toys from the store, you can avoid or reduce the likelihood of conflict if you plan your shopping trip in advance and find a way to negotiate with your child.  It's called being proactive.  We'll focus more closely on grocery shopping soon.  To keep it simple for now, discuss expected behavior in advance and work out a deal.  You want your child to avoid embarrassing you in front of strangers, and you can use a simple reward system to keep the child in line.  It's more effective than punishment.  Perhaps if a child follows the behavior rules you spelled out, like 

• stay seated in the cart, 
• keep hands off merchandise, 
• use your "inside" voice in the store, and only polite, pleasing tones 

through the entire shopping trip, (remember, don't stand up, don't grab, don't talk, don't whine will not work as well)  then you can let the child have a small treat (under $1) as a reward for good behavior when you go shopping, and hopefully it will be a healthy one.  If, like me, you serve a sugary dessert only once a week, then your children won't imagine they're entitled to candy every day, and you can try using cake or cookies as a special reward to encourage the behavior you want from them.  Or you can give them a reward that's not some material (nor fattening) thing.  

If it's something larger and more expensive that your child really wants, you may be able to work out a long term plan.  Perhaps you had thought about getting something in that basic price range for Christmas, but you hadn't found the perfect gift yet.  You can tell an older child (probably not a two or three-year old) that instead of twenty $1 treats, he or she can collect some kind of "good behavior" points for twenty weeks and earn a $20 prize. It might not be a surprise, but a child will feel more satisfied with a gift that's earned and not arbitrarily bestowed from out of the blue.  Children need to learn delayed gratification some day, so you may as well work on that now.  I haven't actually seen big toys in supermarkets since I was a girl, but if your child wants some kind of special treat advertised elsewhere, you can still use shopping behavior as part of your plan.  
  

And remember that the best things in life aren't things.  Sometimes a hug, a smile, an "I love you" or "I was very proud of you today" or some lap time with a good book is worth a hundred little shiny trinkets or a thousand candies.

You can't always get what you want, part 1: Parents have right, too!

The summer after we married, my husband introduced me to his cousin, who had a brilliant system she used with her children when they were little.  Rena lives in New York City, so although she and her husband were financially comfortable, they had a small place without a tremendous amount of space for toys.  In contrast, my brother in New Jersey had more space, and the toys were taking over, squeezing them out of house and home.  I resolved that I was never going to let that happen in my house.  

(photo source: LifeasMOM )

When visiting my brother and struggling to find a seat not cluttered by my little nieces' blocks and doll furniture, I wondered how much longer their family would be able to stay in their house with the growing mountains of clutter, and when my brother and his wife would begin standing up for themselves and put a stop to the expanding mess.

As I already mentioned, my husband's cousin Rena had a brilliant system that I decided I would have to put in place when we had children.  Rena's children had rooms where they could keep their toys, but they had severe limits on how much of the family's common space they could take up with toys.  There was an entertainment center, étagère or whatever you want to call it in their living room, and the two children were allowed to fill no more than two shelves of it at any given time with their toys.  If they wanted more toys than would fill it, they needed to first give away something old to make room for the new toy.  Rena and her husband love their children, but the children were not the only people in their house.  They felt, and rightly so, that they and their adult friends who came to visit should be able to enjoy each other's company in an environment not dominated by children's messes.

I can't claim that my daughters managed to keep their rooms tidy.  For that, we tried buying clear plastic bins to organize the toys on the shelves, and we labeled them with pictures of what belonged inside (markers, doll stuff, building blocks, etc.).  They learned the fundamental principles of putting things away at Montessori preschool, but unfortunately, we removed them from their excellent Montessori program so they could start at their K-8 elementary school with the rest of the class.  Keeping them in Montessori longer might have reinforced the idea of taking responsibility for their things a bit better.  I might also have done a better job resisting the temptation to give them so much.  Both my husband and I grew up without many toys, and even though I tried limiting our collection to top quality educational toys and not a lot of cheap plastic junk, I probably was more materialistic than I should have been, maybe because of my own parents' austerity when I was a girl.

Fortunately, my bedroom has a large closet.  When the children failed to put away their toys after sufficient warning, I confiscated stuff and put it in my closet.  Then I could save myself the hassle of shopping for new toys by eventually giving the confiscated toys back for birthday or holiday gifts.  If the children couldn't take better care of them the second (or third) time around, I gave them all (the toys, not the children) to charity.  

I can't claim I found the perfect solution to the messy bedroom problem.  However, Rena's system of keeping the toys under control, at least in those parts of the house where I like to hang out, proved very effective. 

     

Happy Labor Day!

Do you enjoy weekends and all these other benefits?  Then thank the labor movement! 

Teachers' unions

Children in this country who haven't already done so will be going back to school on Tuesday, where we will trust them to those most demonized and maligned of people, those villains we blame for every problem in American society, America's school teachers.  Well, perhaps we don't despise all teachers; the Catholic schools have those nice nuns who take vows of poverty and chastity.  But the public school teachers in Wisconsin, the ones who think they're somehow entitled to raise families or to even buy houses (and perhaps on a single single income, no less!) have been called every vile name in the press recently, from nazi to terrorist to thug and other names too ugly to write out, all because they have peacefully demonstrated for the right to keep the labor unions they're had for over half a century.  People accuse teachers of not caring about children and caring only about their paychecks.  These accusations come from people who have never taught and would never want to teach, yet imagine they know what teachers think.

I don't belong to a teachers' union, and I understand why some teachers feel frustrated with their unions.  What I don't understand is why some  people believe that teachers' unions are bad.  Yes, they support the Democratic Party, which certain hate radio blowhards might not like, but there are also plenty of business groups that support the Republican Party.  Why don't the teacher-bashers object to that?  Can't we agree that in a free country, voters should have a choice between two (or more) political parties?  Teachers' unions are not anybody's enemy, especially not children.  

What other large membership organization represents the interests of children or the people who work with them on a regular basis?  The National Council for Teachers of English, or the  National Council for Teachers of Mathematics?  Not the American Academy of Pediatricians.  They are a small group, compared to teachers, and their members don't normally spend more than fifteen minutes per year with any given child.  The American Library Association has a subgroup for children's service, and that doesn't have as many members, either.  Is there a parents' union or a children's union that the teachers' unions are always fighting against?  Of course not.  It's the teachers who work with our children for hours every week and put in extra unpaid hours evenings and weekends on their behalf, who know their strengths and weaknesses, their fears, their dreams, their struggles, who work to help them achieve success and fulfill their potential.

This is not an easy time to be a teacher.  These people do a job most people wouldn't wish to do, often undoing the damage of incompetent parents and heartless politicians.  So before you say something negative about people who teach public school for a living, read this editorial and watch this video. 

What do teachers know?

All of us who have children of our own have faced (or will face) occasional run-ins with teachers who seem ignorant or downright wrong about something.  Few famous universities' reputations are built on their schools of education.  I attended UC-Berkeley, which many people consider to be the best public university in the United States, and with the exception of one or two professors, I was very disappointed in the instruction I received in their school of education.  There are some really great education professors and departments out there, (see this) but many people see those teacher training programs as a waste of time. We don't generally expect our Best and Brightest to go into education, especially not education of children.  Our society doesn't encourage it, nor are we willing to pay them to.  Just ask yourself which job you think the most intelligent person in the world should have:

A.  President of the United States

B.  Brain surgeon who operates on your cerebral tumor

C.  Civil engineer who designs the bridge you drive across every day

D.  Defense attorney when you are charged with a crime you didn't commit

E.  Education professor who teaches teachers how to teach.

See what I mean?  


It's not easy for a busy teacher to keep up to date on new developments in educational philosophy or teaching methods.  Many teachers rely on the same methods that worked for them when they were in school ten or twenty years before, or the methods that worked for their education professors when the professors were in school thirty or forty years before.  Of course those methods worked for them.  These were children who decided they wanted to be teachers when they grew up.  

Teachers don't have much opportunity to get together to talk and learn from each other about best practices.  When I taught, I naively thought we would have such exchanges of ideas at faculty meetings, but I soon learned that those were mostly when the principal droned on and on about attendance statistics and teachers tried to sit in the back and catch up on their own paperwork.  Too many teachers see each other as competition, and if they have reputations for being better than their coworkers, they may not want to share their secrets of success.   So-so teachers rarely have the chance to leave their own classrooms to visit model teachers' classrooms, because they're busy all day, and arranging for a substitute to come in and relieve them for an hour has its own share of headaches.  Principals have too many pressing demands on their time to spend more than a few minutes in any teacher's room every year evaluating that teacher's professional skills, and few districts now have the funds for professional development support staff.  Students, especially by the time they reach ninth or tenth grade, probably have a better understanding of what a good teacher does than any new teacher.  Parents, if they have friends and family who have also raised children, might well get more useful feedback on what they're doing wrong or how to be more effective than a teacher gets.

Of course none of this should be taken to mean that teachers don't know anything.  Teachers don't know everything, as we may expect they should, but they know a lot.  One thing teachers need to study at every university I know about is developmental or cognitive psychology.  There are a number of different theories of psychology, usually at odds with each other, that help teachers understand how the brain works, how it develops, how children learn, what their needs are at any given age, and what happens when their needs aren't met.  A good university lets its education students explore and discuss all of these theories.  Because teachers learn about universal human needs, they can make judgments that go beyond "What my cousin Danny had trouble with."  Teacher know better than to ask seven-year-olds to live up to the same expectations they have of seventeen-year-olds, even if they might not all know better than to ask seventeen-year-olds to live up to the expectations of  seven-year-olds.

Here is some information about one theory of developmental psychology.   

http://www.learningplaceonline.com/stages/organize/Erikson.htm

   

What Makes a Good Teacher?

Everyone has something to say about how there are too many "bad" teachers in American schools these days, even people who wouldn't be caught dead teaching school themselves.  I have found that even teachers and principals can't put their finger on what exactly distinguishes a good teacher from a bad one.  Is a teacher who gives all A's better than a teacher who fails half the class?


I once had a colleague who would complain through lunch every day about her daughter's teacher.  According to this mother, the girl's teacher graded her unfairly, picked on her, and gave her a lot of grief at school.  What a terrible teacher! we all thought.  We suggested our colleague take up her concerns with the principal and see if she could do something about her daughter's teacher woman and perhaps put her on warning.  The mother's reaction was, "But she's such a good teacher!"  As confused as she obviously was, she's not the only one.  We expect principals to know what they're doing when they make hiring decisions, even though they often make some terrible calls.  My on-line friend Ebony Thomas, who teaches in Detroit, brought this article to my attention, and we both thought the author described the problem admirably: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/08/29/confessions_of_a_bad_teacher/


Here are some qualities many people expect to see in teachers we call good:

• Ability to keep students under control and out of the principal's office (a top priority for Ms. P)
• Ability to produce high standardized test scores (another top priority for administrators)
• Ability to keep accurate records
• Ability to keep one's "cool" under stress
• Intelligence
• Knowledge of one's subject
• Love and enthusiasm for one's subject
• Concern and respect for children
• Love for children
• Ability to communicate with children
• Popularity
• Creativity
• Sense of humor

Here is the one quality I would name, that I thinks sums it all up: 

• Leadership.

As my friend Tina put it, the most important thing students need to learn is how to do things they don't want to do.  It doesn't matter how well the teacher knows the subject or how brilliant the teacher's lesson plans are if the teacher can't inspire or motivate the students to do the homework, study the material, and do well on the tests.  

The Most Important Thing You Learn in School

According to my dear friend Tina Owen, who was once a high school teacher and is now the principal of a grade 6-12 school she founded herself, the most important thing you have to learn in high school is how to do something you don't want to do.

In defense of teachers

Tomorrow is the first day of September, and for weeks I’ve been seeing school supplies on sale in the stores.  What does that mean?  It’s back to teacher-bashing time!

To tell the truth, the teacher-bashing season began very early this year.  Our new governor has done everything he could to portray teachers as lazy overpaid parasites and thugs with no interest in children and to turn the rest of the taxpaying public against teachers.  For teachers in Wisconsin and other states hit by the budget-cutting pandemic, this will be a tough year.  Many have chosen to retire rather than return to a hard job that has fewer rewards than ever.


As children, we had little exposure to any adults at work except for teachers.  We have no reason to deal  with marketing executives, tax attorneys, research biologists, insurance adjusters, or tool and die makers on the job.  As a result, we sometimes grow up separating adults into those who are our parents, those who are our teachers, and perhaps a hazy class of "all others" who don't hold much interest for the normal six or seven-year-old.  Some people might choose to be teachers because they lack the grades or the imagination to become anything else, but most people who go into teaching do so because they care about children.  A mathematician who could teach at the university level or go into business on Wall Street, but chooses instead to work for a fraction of the pay teaching eighth graders is not (now matter what some mischievous eighth graders may believe) an enemy of children.


Teaching is a job that not everybody can do well.  Some individuals seem like natural teachers, and some struggle.   Even people who have what it takes to be great teachers have problems at first.  It takes good training and lots of support.  If you're not happy with your child's teacher, remember that he or she has a job most people would never chose, and you'll do your child no favors by encouraging disrespect.   Demonizing our society’s dedicated educators does not do our society’s children any good.  By declaring war against teachers, we send children the message that education is not an honorable pursuit, and the children will suffer the most devastating casualties in that war. 


We compare today's teachers to those we remember from the mythical "Good Old Days" and hold them responsible for solving so many problems our grandparents never knew.   Yes, high school students were more disciplined a century ago than they are now, but why is that?  A century ago, most children quit school by fourteen or sixteen and went to work on the farm or in a factory, or even started families.  A century ago, teachers were allowed to paddle children or send them home without facing legal ramifications, and children had a "healthy respect" for their elders' power.  A century ago, the moral values of our local communities had more influence than television or popular culture.   A century ago, we didn't have the same bewildering smorgasbord of child-rearing philosophies fighting against each other and competing for our loyalty.  


We may all remember one sainted self-sacrificing teacher we had when we were children and wonder why they can't all be like that now.  Perhaps she was a nun who took vows of chastity and poverty, or perhaps she was the old maid or widow who devoted herself to educating children for forty years to support herself.  Or perhaps she was a happily married woman with no lack for money but felt a need to do something useful with her time.  But the truth is that many teachers in the "good old days" were incompetent and left the profession as soon as a better job or marriage proposal came up.  Otherwise, the stereotype of the bad teacher would have never developed.  Today's schools do hold teachers to higher standards than at any time in the past.  We need good teachers now more than ever, but we are not going to attract our best and brightest to the profession by putting them down and cutting their pay.

Parents are our first teachers

The new governor in our great state has been trying in recent month to drive a wedge between public school teachers and taxpayers.  I guess he doesn't realize that teachers are taxpayers.  Public school teachers here in Milwaukee pay local property taxes at a higher rate than their self-appointed suburban foes.  It is a terrible mistake, and it hurts children, when politicians declare war on the people who educate the next generation.  Parents and teachers need to work together, because whatever lies the politicians may tell about teachers being both greedy parasites and slaves to their union leaders, both good teachers and good parents are in the same business, of helping children grow into the best adults they can be.   That is the most important, and most difficult, business in the world.


I have been both a parent and a teacher, and in both capacities I have met people on both sides of the relationship who do not do their job well.  The law holds teachers responsible for taking the parents' place (in Latin: In loco parentis) during the time children are in their care.  Then again, teaching is a parent's primary responsibility.   


While I can't take sides against either parents as a group or teachers as a group, I know that a teacher does need a license to practice, and bad teachers really can be fired.  Nobody ever got a teaching license by getting drunk at a party.  Teachers have to take classes in child psychology and teaching methods in addition to whatever subject they teach, and if they fail those subjects, they can't get their licenses.  Of course that's no guarantee that they can handle all the demands of the job, but parents can assume that their children's teachers will be at least reasonably competent.  I will examine the problem of bad teachers soon.  


As for the competence of parents, some are magnificent, and some are unfit.  The ability to have a child is not limited to the kindly and wise people among us.  Of course teachers want their students to have parents who care and do their job well.  They may hope a child has good ones and be concerned about a child who doesn't.  Sometimes, teachers will even become parents themselves, which means they really do understand what parents are going through.  I wish that more parents could set aside the distrust and pride that prevents them from working with school staff to assure the best outcome for their children.  Most teachers do care and they have a lot to contribute to their communities outside of the classroom. 

Where did we go wrong?

Our city, along with other even greater cities, has seen a rise in youth violence this summer.  See this article.  Whether it's because of the economy, societal problems, or inadequate parenting, I can't help thinking more needs to be done on every level to address the problem.   

Raising Likable People

My friend Rona Kader Wolfe, one of the most perfect parents I know, posted something on her facebook page yesterday that brilliantly sums up much of what I've been thinking about recently.  Her little daughter Sadie asked her, 
"Mom, why do some people grow up to be so mean?" 
Rona- "Maybe because no one let them be happy when they were little. When you don't know how to be happy with yourself, you don't know how to like others." 
Sadie- "Oh, if that's the case when I grow up I guess I'm gonna love everybody!"


I doubt that anyone deliberately sets out to abuse children.  However, I know parents who think it's good to be "tough" with a child in the name of "discipline."  Before Dr. Benjamin Spock, the "experts" counseled mothers not to cuddle and comfort their babies too much, because it would spoil them.  It wasn't considered healthy to kiss little children, because they might get germs.  They said it was "unscientific" to show children too much love, even psychologically damaging.  I still know people who say suffering is good for the soul.  What doesn't kill them will make them stronger.  Unfortunately, what doesn't make them stronger might just kill them.   Yes, they do need to learn that there is cruelty and injustice in this world, but they shouldn't feel beaten down by it and develop full-time despair.   


Children will have plenty of time when they're older to develop strength and independence, but before they can do that, they need to develop a sense that they are loved and secure and that a good life is possible within their families, if not in the world at large.  

Public vs. Private

I care about my children, as I’m sure other parents care about theirs, and I want what’s best for them.   As someone who cares about education in particular, of course I want mine to get the best possible education.  And I love my own children better than anyone else’s children, so doesn’t that mean I want their education to be better than everyone else’s children’s education?  No, it does not.   We cannot say “all that matters to me is my own family, and nobody else.”

I posted a link yesterday to a video about some of the people behind the crusade against public schools.  Wisconsin was the first battleground in the privatization wars, even before the current attacks on public school teachers here.  The people who have tried taking control of the government here have tried pulling some of the same stunts in North Carolina.  There are even some people who support their efforts.  The argument these people continually offer is that parents who care about their children need to take them out of “government controlled” schools, which are failing them, if they want them to get a quality education, and put them into private schools instead, at the taxpayers’ expense.  People who don’t have children in public school shouldn’t be taxed to support these institutions, they say.   It’s not fair to make families pay for two educational systems when they’re only using one. 

Having sent my children to private school for a total of thirty child/years (37½ if one counts preschool) before sending them to public high schools and universities, I can certainly understand these parents’ point of view.  I would certainly have loved having help from the government with their tuition, especially since my daughters didn’t attend the local public elementary school.  

But saying “I shouldn’t have to pay to support a school unless it’s my own child’s school ” makes as much sense as saying “I shouldn’t have to pay to support a fire department unless it’s my own house they’re saving ” or “I shouldn’t have to pay to support a police department or judicial or prison system unless it’s my own mugger they’re arresting and prosecuting,” or “I shouldn’t have to pay to maintain roads I never drive on or parks I never visit.”  The public schools are there free for every family to use.  Our city, Milwaukee, has some excellent public schools where I would have loved sending them, but I wanted them to receive religious instruction that they could not have received in public school.  Parents who prefer to use other schools, as my husband and I did, make that choice freely, and choices come with responsibilities.   Because we chose a private school, we faced our responsibility and paid the tuition.  We did not ask the taxpayers to do so, because we knew it wouldn’t be fair to punish them for our family’s choice.

Whether one has children or not, public schools are an essential institution in one’s society, and good public schools are in everybody’s interest.  A business owner wants employees capable of doing their jobs well and consumers with high enough incomes to afford the business’s goods or services.  Property owners want their neighbors to be sufficiently well educated that they could afford to buy their own jewelry and electronics and not think of stealing from others.

Assuring that other people’s children receive good educations helps my family.  My children all love books and music and movies.   They have a personal interest in assuring that other people’s children learn to write well, play music well, and make good movies.  My children want to have decent homes and modern transportation infrastructure so they can get to work.  They have a personal interest in assuring that other people’s children grow up to be good, well-educated architects and engineers.  My children sometimes get sick.  They have a personal interest in assuring that other people’s children become excellent, well-educated physicians.   My children plan to live in a state with a government.  They have a personal interest in assuring that other people’s children grow up to be wise and capable legislators.

My children don’t need to compete with your children for academic honors.  My children will lose nothing if your children win.

Where are you going, little girl?

I want to thank my friend Ebony Thomas, PhD for bringing this blog post to my attention this morning.

  See also the video in yesterday's post, about what's happening to public education in this country.