Economic Instability Set to Mother Ingenuity in the Minds of Our Children

Our recent economic "crisis," or as Adam Smith would purport, a "self-correcting" phase in the grand schematic, has interesting implications to the manner in which we raise our children. Throughout history, parenting styles have often reflected the attitudes and mores of the common economic phenomena. Think of the industrial revolution, when children were more-or-less trained to be independent, laborious-type contributors to society, ultimately accepting and utilizing a specific skill to conduct a trade. Or we consider in the 80's and 90's when business and technology began advancing at exponential rates. The result was a widening gap between underperforming children and those who could produce a desired mark or product. "Research demonstrated that, in the 80's, high parental expectations and criticism were related to socially-prescribed perfectionism. In many children, the flip-side result was related to higher levels of procrastination (Psychology Today, March 21, 2009)."

Bringing us up to date, we need to consider what is the prevailing attitude of our culture in the early 21st century? As we decode this philosophy, we can ascertain the way in which a majority of parents are raising their children. This is not easily communicated, as we can identify a sundry of perspectives trumpeted throughout this administrative milieu. I believe what exists is a sort of secular humanism, using reason, ethics, and justice for human, and subsequently economic achievement. This common thread of thinking either cultivates a well-intentioned subculture of positivity (either genuine or not), or it promotes a disillusioned outlook on reality.

Having seen my share of children in the short time I have been a professional, I can attest that there is little symmetry between the views of the parents I have spoken with in my career. However, I believe that there is a broadening perspective by child development experts and some of the highly effective parents I have met, that entails fostering the use of human reason, ethics, and justice, in raising children. Though my worldview does not align with the basic tenets of humanism, in its purest form, I believe this can be a highly constructive ethos to employ in parenting.

One particular reason why the use of reason and ethics can be beneficial in parenting, is that it refines distorted thinking. We are seeing the negative results of greed in the business world, and it certainly is not stopping. The housing market will be working to stabilize for years to come, formerly comfortable employees are stretched on their budgets, and need I mention gas prices? Yet, there are a growing number of people, many that only in the last ten years have left childhood, who are using their ingenuity to find niches in a receptive market. I think of the many young adults who are reusing materials to manufacture and sell the same commodities that were formerly monopolized by enormous companies. I also, recently read an article about a subculture of people who are operating their own free-range chicken farms in suburban and city neighborhoods to generate extra revenue by selling eggs, and indulging in the benefits of having their own yield. These are just two of many innovative enterprises redirecting our attention away from the ravenous ways of numerous big-businesses.

This is the kind of creativity that is burgeoning, as we retain an adequate outlook on human nature and our propensity to discover originality. As our attitude toward rediscovering the purpose of humanity plays out in the 21st century, we are bound to see children growing up with a sense of identity, meaning, and a longing for fulfilling professions. There are many players in our current administration that want to distract our children from what is important. But, like the few that are using our current crisis as a prescription for creative possibilities, there is an opportunity to watch children flourish with their ideas of how to combat destructive cultural philosophies.

Jay Richards, author of "Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem," says of the entrepreneur:

"Unlike the self-absorbed, they anticipate the needs of others, even needs that no one else may have imagined. Unlike the impetuous, they make disciplined choices. Unlike the automaton, they freely discover new ways of creating and combining resources to meet the needs of others. This cluster of virtues, not the vice of greed, is the essence of what the Reverend Robert Sirico calls the ‘entrepreneurial vocation."

To retain this attitude for our culture, to blanket our children with this vision, is to empower them with a desire to fulfill their God-given purpose no matter what fiscal imperfections our society throws at them.

What Our Country's Current Attitude on Healthcare Teaches Our Children About Growing Up

I work in the Non-profit sector for my full-time occupation. I also have two other part-time jobs to pay the bills. One of those jobs, I work an additional ten hours per week on top of my required forty hours per week with my full-time job. I work this extra ten hours per week solely so that my wife and son can have decent insurance. I even took on a very part-time freelance writing gig to generate some more income. My wife is an independent contractor that has limited (and expensive) options for purchasing health/dental insurance for herself and my son. I write all of this to unfold a clearer tapestry of what has happened recently in terms of the security of my family and how it pertains to the manner in which our nation's attitude on healthcare is set up to hinder the motivations of our children.

The affordable insurance debate is profound, long-winded, and ultimately a timely one in the midst of a moderately unstable economy. It was much more rigorously debated during the first two years of Obama's Presidency, and has since been cushioned by some decent policies in response to the dyer situation of healthcare in our country. This whole scenario hit home two years ago, when I took a job at a Non-profit that offered a benefits package after six months of employment that was quite affordable to me, but bank-account-sucking to add my family. I made the decision to stay on the insurance and pursue other options for my wife and son. Inevitably, I was forced to choose between high-deductible/low premium or low deductible/high premium. I chose the latter, and it has done it's job.

Well, I recently was exposed to an insurance plan called MOHealthNet, an affordable health insurance initiative set forth by Obama's operatives. It is set up to provide "Missouri's low income and vulnerable citizens access to excellent health care in order to maximize their quality of life and independence." We are not a low income family, but nonetheless, I felt that not having access to decent healthcare benefits was in our range because of the nature of my work. I realize it would be easy to argue against this theory from a for-profit, significant-benefits-package perspective, so just keep quiet. Or provide a decent enough argument that trumps the truth that I only care about my family. More so, non-profit work has certainly stirred me to become more ingenuitive than most people with our budget.

I eventually began the process of attaining this wonderful insurance specifically for my son, because we made too much (we certainly don't make too much) to have both my wife and son on this insurance. After sorting through heaps of paperwork, turning in the required documentation to prove our moderate, lower-middle-class income, and waiting to hear the response, it ended up being a dissappointing "no," for none other than this reason: my son currently had insurance! Talk about irony. Forget the idea that it was expensive (on my budget), high deductible, limited health insurance and I have another job just to pay for it.

This is the state of current healthcare. In hopes of counteracting the revenue-dominating forces of the medical industry, our policies have made health insurance free to many who choose to not engage themselves in gainful employment and have cable/phone bills higher than my mortgage payment. In addition, the many who strive to achieve in life, are diligent at sorting through the details of budgeting, and simply want to narrow the gap between costly medical care and family needs, are left to navigate through the mucky waters of what to buy and how effective it will be when health concerns actually arise.

There is undoubtedly a subset of culture that are granted good family group insurance through companies that can afford it. There is a subset that does not have any health insurance for their family, either by choice or by misfortune. There are several spots in-between where myself and many others reside, where insurance is a maze of considering the unlikely traumas, not wanting to pay for them, but not being able to afford solid enough insurance to pay for minimal concerns.

My focus in writing this blog was about the prevailing unbalanced attitude of the majority of Americans regarding affordable healthcare. I am not an expert on the subject, but what I do know is how attitudes perpetuate encouragement or enablement. It is not to say that I deserve a break, or that others should get their acts together, but rather, effective judgment on matters of what is best for people considers the plight of the people. We do not remove mercy from those who choose to not work and have their bills paid for, but we do remove support as the just father and mother nudge their young out of the nest so they can choose to fly. Needless to say since pursuing MOHealthNet, I have had discussions with several people expressing to me that they are aware of many others, including friends, who do not work, have not worked in some time, and are sitting comfortably with some of the best insurance possible to use at their leisure. This upsets me. Not simply because I am impacted by it, but more so because the children who sit under the care of the individuals that reap unjust rewards from the government glean nothing. The children are to be taken care of as they are incapable of caring for themselves, but not by direct entitlement to the immature lifestyles of their guardians.

Summarily, I of course never forget the flipside. It is more effective to criticize the greedy. Their lessons are more easily learned, it is the poor on whom we show much mercy; just not at the expense of practical enlightenment.

Good, Old-Fashioned, Mud-pie and Stick Play

A recent story was run in 2008 regarding the evolution of children's play since the first toy ad outside of the Christmas season. The "Thunder Burp," a toy constructed by Mattel, was introduced through an advertisement during an October 3, 1955 Mickey Mouse Club episode. What has occurred since then is a transition of children improvising their own play prior to the 50's, to present-day play focused often singularly on a specific toy. The story gave this example:

"During the second half of the 20th century... play changed radically.... Children were supplied with ever more specific toys for play and predetermined scripts. Essentially, instead of playing pirate with a tree branch, they played Star Wars with a toy light saber...."

Psychologists and child development experts believe the most formative and meaningful play for children is centered on their own initiative and emotional regulation. Experts believe that sustainable development happens when children are given specific rules regarding safety and socialization, and then are allowed freedom to explore and create with limited adult intervention, less safety rules are being broken. With this type of play we see children initiating interactions with others and the world around them in an unencumbered fashion. They learn through this exploration in make believe in myriad educational domains (social, intellectual, affective regulation).

A fascinating piece in this story also included the effect that psychologists believe that play, focused upon particular objects (light sabers, toys that represent mainstream media figures, etc.) are actually undermining the executive functioning of the brain, subsequently changing kids' developmental capacities.

"A growing number of psychologists believe that these changes in what children do has also changed kids' cognitive and emotional development. It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control and discipline."

The story continues...

"We know that children's capacity for self-regulation has diminished. A recent study replicated a study of self-regulation first done in the late 1940s, in which psychological researchers asked kids ages 3, 5, and 7 to do a number of exercises. One of those exercises included standing perfectly still without moving. The 3-year-olds couldn't stand still at all, the 5-year-olds could do it for about three minutes, and the 7-year-olds could stand pretty much as long as the researchers asked. In 2001, researchers repeated this experiment... but the results were very different. Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago..."

It is fascinating to me that we have seen a slow regression in children's ability to regulate themselves since the ever-so-slight introduction of toys into mainstream media. We have to take a step back, evaluate where we want our children to be, not simply intellectually, but also socially and emotionally, in the next 50 years. No doubt they will be exposed to more intellectually stimulating activities and materials, but at what cost to the rest of their precious souls?

Baby Einstein? More Like Baby Frankenstein.

I admit the title is a bit abrasive. Justifiably, I speak as a former perpetrator of the Baby Einstein video phenomenon, so my attitude is moderately excusable. So, excuse me, but I have a few things to say about Baby Einstein videos.

To begin with, during year one of my son's life, my wife and I had a ridiculous amount of responsibility. We just had our beautiful baby boy, and my wife returned to work part-time shortly after he was born. We spent the bulk of our time trading off parenting duties while maintaining professional and school routines. She would see clients while I watched my son, then my wife would take my place as I performed the myriad tasks I had to accomplish in my last year of graduate school. We found that we had a limited amount of time to simply be in the same company without also having our progeny deservedly insisting on our undivided attention.

Here is where Baby Einstein and his cronies: Baby Van Gogh, Baby Mozart, etc., came in quite nicely. We allowed ourselves no more than an hour a day to allow our little baby to fixate on our computer monitor to watch little objects dance and wiggle around to the tune of some of history's greatest compositions. All the while, we basked in the few moments we had to share a conversation over breakfast or relax together with some tea. With this in mind, I loved Baby Einstein videos. Yet the song begins to carry a different tune when considering what the content of these videos actually produces.

The premise of the Baby Einstein collection is to animate the brain of a child through moving toys, rapid scene changes, and dazzling colors. The content supposedly activates the neurochemistry to stimulate learning. In theory it is effective. However, the content of these videos ventures into the field of hyper-stimulation, where the brain simply overloads and becomes flooded with activity until learning becomes secondary, non-existent, or even regressive. This can be disastrous to a baby who is continually bombarded with video babysitters. Their neurochemistry is roused constantly, and the ability to sustain their attention becomes more challenging in reality.

A Time article in 2007 was quite critical of Baby Einstein, even going as far as to claim, "researchers find that these products may be doing more harm than good. And they may actually delay language development in toddlers." (article information is included below). In the article, Dr. Vic Strasburger, professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, explains further:

"Babies require face-to-face interaction to learn...watching probably interferes with the crucial wiring being laid down in their brains during early development."

As media proliferates attention-seeking materials as the main source of educating children, so goes the interaction between child and adult, which has continually been proven to produce the most effective comprehensive education. With the videos, "(children's) minds come to expect a high level of stimulation, and view that as normal," says Christakis, "and by comparison, reality is boring."

In 1999, The American Academy of Pediatrics went as far as to recommend that children under two should avoid watching any television. While this is a noble recommendation, it is rather unrealistic in the 21st century and was quite impractical even for the author of this blog, who remains constructively passive about allowing our son a little bit of television time per day. We have even developed a modest collection of videos for him to watch. Not surprisingly, because we offer him a lot of other options and educational materials, he naturally loses interest in the videos after less than an hour.

Taking a humble look at what media giants like the Baby Einstein Company have done in the learning industry, I can admit that these videos can have their place in family's homes. But, I speak ever-so-boldly that they will not produce the educational benefit that the company purports to accomplish. Nor do they support neurological development in any facet. So, to quote the old warning label often used to protect children: "use this product with caution!"

**Time article can be found at: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1650352,00.html.**

Your Baby Can Read! But Does it Matter?

There is a discrepancy between what is being offered by trendy childhood learning tools, and what has been postulated as the most research-based, comprehensive theories of educating children. The first time I heard about "Your Baby Can Read," I was in fact, riveted that there could be a solid basis for the effectiveness of such a tool. I thought about how some of the greatest minds history has ever known started performing some talent or aptitude at a very young age. I also recalled how I have heard over and over again that the best time to learn something is when the brain is most ripe to do so. On the flip-side, I was also cynical as I pondered how my own 2-year old can not read, nor has ever shown a strong interest in learning how to at this point, though we spend ample time reading with him. Am I a bad father for not exposing him to this tool? Is he doomed to mediocrity? There may have been a smidgeon of jealousy that the kids on the videos may actually be smarter than my perceptive son. These thoughts led me to start to sort through the basis of why this program was developed. And secondly does it really matter all that much that children can read at 2?

I can fully comprehend how in a world of performance and child idolatry (as in - making icons out of any performing child), that industry leaders would be seeking to develop cutting edge programs to peek the performance of children whose parents are willing to invest in any way to give their child a leg up. On a personal aside, I am tempted almost every day to find some niche where my son could eventually compete against others at a high level. It is definitely the uglier side of parenting as we teeter on the balance beam of giving our children abundant opportunities to succeed, while not making their talents the objects of our own affection and pride. I don't know many parents that would ever deny this valid temptation. What we need to recognize by this vice of sorts, is that we are prone to allow any opportunity to invest in a program or tool that will give our child what appears to be an edge on others their age. It is obviously okay to a point, but if it is not in the best interest of our children, than we are undoubtedly teetering off the beam.

The tool is ultimately just stimulating the brain to process information at a rate that is far more suitable to its capacities. This is very defensible with research and common sense. What I am concerned about is the notion that through a language development theory, we are purporting that all children should be able to operate under a scientific modem of performance. (With only a couple of years in the educational field, I hesitate to offer my opinion on why this tool is ultimately ill-advised, but this is my blog, so read on for my unstable opinion). I want to see successful children as much as anyone. I love watching children learn and to increase in their knowledge and insight of the world around them. What scares me when it comes to educating children is both the attitude of productivity, as well as an insecure pursuit of competition. Life success and the overall health of individuals in our society has never boiled down to the ability to perform at a genius level. There are way too many geniuses and successful persons that are imploding emotionally, socially, and most importantly, spiritually. I do understand the desire to purchase programs such as "Your Baby Can Read," if met with the right balance of support of the child's well-being and developmentally appropriate learning styles. Otherwise, I believe that what manifests far too often with these scenarios is a failure to meet children's greatest needs of compassionate attachment to adult figures, and a sense of esteem not based upon a specific talent. My greatest hope is that parents and educators do not get caught up in a frenzy of "geniusitis," but rather realize that the most important, formative characteristics of a person, including a child, are their ability to build positive relationships, have self-control, and to ultimately be the person God has designed them to be.

So are we really selling all of our children short, or do we surmise and come to terms with the fact that the majority of children are not exactly meant to comprehend several languages? Many children indeed have numerous other gifts germane to their personality that are just as effective for producing individuality and the betterment of others. Who truly benefits from a child being able to read at 2? Is it the parents who show them off? Is it the child who gets to be on a few youtube videos or their own website (see "Oscar Wrigley" or "Elise Tan Roberts")? Is it a company that spawns an enterprise based upon a few genuinely gifted children that retain information at a faster rate than even the majority of the adult population? As I conclude, I do not think that this is a bad or ineffective tool. I do however think that the tool is not as developmentally and comprehensively appropriate as the inventors may think.

The Ultimate Consequence of One's Worldview Upon Educating Our Children (Part 1)

I was prompted recently to re-think the paradigm of what it means to function from a worldview when it comes to both roles as a parent and as an educator of children. A response to one of my previous blogs questioned the place of God in being a teacher. It posed a very important thought that undoubtedly needs significant consideration in order for me to be able to defend the place of my beliefs in my profession and as a parent. After all, is this not a primary concern of our nations educational plight. Typically, what we are seeing in our culture are either groups of people opposed to God in education, a lot of staunch conservatives who see God as being a vital asset to the school system, and those in-between who can be shaken either way. So, this is definitely not a newly considered topic. But, obviously one that has divided millions of people.

So, why not have a blog addressing it, as many others have? That is what I shall do! Hopefully I can at least shed some light on what it means operatively to have a worldview (which we all do), in the educational system. At first I need to hash out what the concept of a "worldview" means. Gary Palmer, a cultural linguistic professional said a worldview is: "the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing themes, emotions, and ethics." (***source available upon request***). Minus the wordiness, a worldview has an exhaustive impact upon all of our thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and ultimately our actions. Though we don't always respond specific to our worldview, the end result and our views of ourselves and others will eventually shape into our worldview. We often deviate to religion when entertaining this concept. The idea of religion is a misnomer of sorts as it does not complete the picture of a worldview. Instead, it is a piece of what the worldview encompasses. Some religions are more heavily weighted in terms of worldview than others, but as a means of qualifying, religious beliefs in and of itself do not denote the entire portrait.

With a fairly general conception of worldview established, I have a practical example. A recent study done with a group of therapists and their clients upon receiving treatment, revealed that the therapists idea of success was typically not connected to the clients concept of personal growth. Instead, what typically indicated client success in the therapist's eyes revealed that it was highly attuned to the therapist's concept of what dictates the ideal life and/or a chosen theory of treatment, and the subsequent tenets of that theory. This said, if you were a therapist who concentrated primarily on helping a client change his/her behaviors (smoking, drinking, etc.) because you believed this to be his/her main deterrent toward a good life, and the client was able to change the behavior, then you would presume you were successful. However, when that client was asked shortly after therapy sessions, if behavior change was what they deemed success, the client revealed he/she was hoping for something entirely different, or maybe more comprehensive. The point of this study was to show that as professionals we have a way of introducing our own beliefs into what we do and how we perform, whether it is conducive to the good of others or not. I would say that the norm is that therapeutic impact is beneficial toward clients, but at times it has this adverse impact upon others where the therapist has sometimes subconsciously pushed a client into a specific definition of success based upon the therapist's own beliefs. Those beliefs may be entirely ineffective when it comes to a person's positive growth! We have missed the point, if we believe that therapy is the only vocation that would be impacted by our beliefs. Is our attitude toward people, success, ethics, etc. not integrated into our business practices, political agendas, and professional pursuits?

I believe this is entirely relevant to the field of education as well, because a I said before, we all have a worldview. Would it not have an ensuing impact on the manner in which we teach or educate as parents?

To take a fairly common view of life... If I believed that at the core humans are always good no matter what they choose, this would influence my approach to educating children. I would undoubtedly excuse negative-type behaviors toward others as being a reflection of a misplaced anxiety. And that eventually behavioral concerns would iron themselves out. Or, another view could be that I have concluded that environmental factors are always to blame for children's issues. If problems arose with a child, I would automatically look to parents, myself, or some broken-down system of influence as being the sole culprit. The child has no autonomy to make good decisions, instead I encourage the child to deflect from the influence and ultimately pressure that child into an opposing position toward those that have caused the harm.

While most worldviews don't pan out precisely this way, we can see how our attitudes can, and I believe always will, be manifested in our interactions with others, including children. This blog seeks to introduce the notion that we must always consider our beliefs about life in general as we are raising, parenting, and teaching children. The impact that our worldview has upon a child shapes so much of that child's approach to life and ultimately their development in either a positive or negative way. There is no in-between when it comes to interactions with children, everything they experience is either encouraging or discouraging to them. If we genuinely believe that children are worthy to receive love, guidance, and direction, because they, at the core are precious creations, then these beliefs will be exhibited in one way or another and the children themselves will reap the benefits of having people in their lives that view them as being worthwhile investments of time and energy. We could have any number of views about humanity as a whole and the effect would work itself into our presentation of educational material. We have only to consider our own experiences with teachers, our parents, and other influential figures, and to evaluate how they look at the whole of life, to see how they have impacted us positively or negatively with their beliefs.

Part 2 will lay out some more specificied and practical ways that we can maintain a worldview that will carry with it the most positive and formative application for educating and raising children.

Champions of One

The basis for this piece entitled: "Champions of One," is an assertion that hits very near to my own personal journey. It unfolds like this... I am pretty tired of feeling like I don't have an area of expertise. My personality is one that is too captivated by the idea of being okay at a number of things: athletics, intelligence, relationships, artistry. The ironic thing about this blog is that it flies in the face of my defense of the comprehensive childhood education. It does not contradict however, rather this blog really seeks to take the comprehensive outlook on the early childhood experience and allow it to foster a stronger sense of personal identity, hopefully leading to a more well-rounded perspective on one's ideal vocational lifestyle, including mine.

It appears to me that we are seeing a motivation in our culture for individuals to assert one or two specific talents or skills and to develop a lifestyle out of that. This could be the result of the financial meltdown that half of the world is experiencing. Or it could be because the newest generations in the working force are tiring of being blended into an enterprise at the expense of their true gifts. Some may disagree, but what I am seeing in our culture is a reassessment of how individuals can exit the antiquated rat race, and become more innovative. I know I am feeling this myself, as I have been making a living as a teacher and feeling the crunch to provide more for my family. So, what did I do? The juices started flowing, and through some significant efforts, I have nailed a part-time writing gig with an online network, am valeting to bring in some extra cash, and have begun the process of starting my counseling practice. I have seen a number of people reaching deeply into their capacities, fostering under-developed skills and talents, and subsequently have been led to a better understanding of their "calling."

I think this attitude of developing an area of expertise has far-reaching implications to the early childhood experience. Like I said previously, I am a huge advocate of the holistic education. This encompasses: spiritual development - leading into; physical, emotional, relational, and intellectual development. I believe that the most effective learning experience for a child is generated through a thorough and multi-faceted frame of reference. Addressing all of the aforementioned domains in a meaningful way precipitates further educational excellency. It is from this foundation, that I urge readers to help their children, or even themselves, find their niche.

I have applied this notion to raising my son, as I have already, at the age of 2, seen glimpses of what he is interested in, captivated by, and solicited more information about. I do not believe that I am getting ahead of myself with his idiosyncrasies, instead I believe that I am witnessing his unique nature unfolding piece by piece before my very eyes. And the more I pay attention to it, the more I can offer him guidance and support toward what he is truly called to do in his lifetime. I can obviously infect my own ideas into this, but if I am keeping an open mind as his interests surface, I can offer him the underpinnings with which he can eventually flourish. Children need an environment where they can learn to explore their own personal interests, rather than simply fulfilling the expectations of those around them. As they do explore, there is an unconscious construct of independent investigation that manifests, leaving the child to survey their own interests.

Myself, my son, and every other person I have ever come into contact with are not good at everything. We all have a unique skill set, sometimes similar, yet mostly singular (hopefully these skill sets are functioning for the betterment of the whole). The importance of an education starting at the earliest stage possible sets in motion an attitude within the child that their talents can have a special place in the grand orchestra of mankind. That they can contribute to the betterment of society through initiative and wisdom. As a child pursues their one (maybe two or three) areas of expertise, they can have the ultimate assurance that they are fulfilling their God-given purpose.