There were three of us children, and my parents raised us with intention. They bought a set of encyclopedias while my big brother was still in diapers and dutifully put the yearbook stickers in place each year. We had swim lessons, homemade birthday parties, and we were even on TV with Miss Marsha.
Despite all this attention to planning, the most important thing my parents ever did for us was done for someone else’s benefit.
When we were about 6, 8 and 9, my parents sponsored a refugee family from Cambodia. I do not remember the family discussions we must have had before their arrival. What I remember is a young woman clutching a toddler in an oversized dress, with her husband and brother at her side. Not one of them knew a word of English. They were at once frightened, and incredibly brave.
We children lost our basement playroom, where we had once been allowed to develop empires of Lego blocks and cardboard boxes for our marble people, or to drag out our mad scientist experiments for days or weeks with no clean-up call. The new people descended into this abode, and slept for most of a day. I perched on the steps, watching their brown feet for any sign of movement.
They smelled like spices I did not know, and they spoke volumes with dark eyes and timid smiles. I loved them right away. I was glad to give up my basement. I’d have given them my bedroom, my playhouse, and all my toys, too.
My mother prepared food she thought our guests would appreciate – chicken, rice and vegetables. The Cambodians sat around the table, staring. They would not eat. She called an interpreter, who looked at the spread and laughed softly.
“They’re confused,” she explained. “You’ve served an entire chicken. They’re probably worried this is all the meat for the next week. And that bowl of rice on the table – that’s only enough rice for one or two people.”
My mother took them to an Asian market. She stared wide-eyed as Len pointed to a fifty pound bag of rice. Soon Len was in the kitchen, treating us all to a sumptuous Cambodian meal. The rice was firm and dry, without the butter or sugar preferred here in the South. She spooned a steaming mound onto each plate, and garnished it with two bites of chicken cooked in ginger and a spoonful of steamed vegetables.
Our next task was to teach our guests English. When I remember my childhood home, I remember words taped all over the house: window, door, piano, and chair. My parents argued over “little tree,” which Mom worried they would assign to all pine trees. Dad compensated by labeling a dozen more trees.
We kids argued over weightier matters: Is it more Christian to teach Houn swear words, or to risk that he might not know if someone insults him at work?
Over time, our house guests learned the language and the culture. They worked hard, saved money, and eventually moved to Washington State to be near other family members. The experience was so positive, my parents opted to repeat it, later taking in members of Len’s extended family.
Although our Cambodian friends now live on the other side of the continent, they never forget to share their lives with us through calls, visits and photographs. Recently my parents were invited to a wedding, where they were honored as though their sacrifices had taken place only yesterday.
Of course, I do not remember any sacrifices. What I remember is growing up with an extra big brother to fend off the bullies. I remember holding a little brown baby and learning to say her name. I remember teaching a small boy to ride a bike. I remember Homp working in the garden and helping with the cows. I’m sure my parents (who will be embarrassed by this column) would say that everything they gave was repaid tenfold in terms of love, loyalty and generosity.
Because my parents were so intentional about our raising, they must have discussed the prospective impact of refugee sponsorship on their own developing children. They obviously believed the benefits to us children outweighed any risks. Still, I doubt they could have foreseen the impact it would have on us. Of all the things my parents did for us – the money spent on education, the hours baking in the sun to cheer us on at swim meets or freezing at football games, and all the shopping, chauffeuring, lecturing and worrying -- everything pales in comparison to this:
My parents taught us to love people before they have earned it.
Such unmerited love is the heart of Christmas. Not only can we say “God so loved the world,” (John 3:16) but also that “Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.” (Romans 5:8) God did not wait for us to realize we needed a Savior. God did not declare that in order to receive help we must first learn a language, or fill out the right paperwork, or be born a certain color or under a certain creed. Our Savior reached out to us in perfect love, not in spite of our destitute state, but because of it.
This is what we need to give our children. Give them a model of the world that empowers them to go forth in love, trusting the goodness of God and the resilience of the human spirit.
#
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Homeschoolers play in the dirt
Addressing the school social worker’s rant
This weekend my grandson came over to the house to play. Almost two years old, little Isaiah has a firmly set mission in life: To find whatever trouble he can, and thoroughly get into it. In our yard, he made a bee-line for the leaky water hose.
“You see what he’s doing?” I asked my daughter.
Moriah shrugged. “It’s just water . . . and mud. He’ll come clean.”
Isaiah picked up the hose and leaned over for a better look, inadvertently squirting himself in the face. He looked up at us, streams of water pouring from his fine blond hair. We were smiling, so he smiled back. He stared at the stream for a moment, and then started lapping at it like a puppy. We laughed while he drenched himself, eventually muddy up to his knees.
According to Catoosa County school social worker Sue Mason, we laughed because we are homeschoolers. We don’t know that children are not supposed to play in the dirt. In her scathing two-part article “My thoughts on homeschooling” and “Homeschooling: the dark side,” Mason presents an alternate reality in which parents homeschool their children just to sleep late and avoid responsibility while their children play in the dirt. I suppose she has never seen all those children on the school playground at recess, playing in the dirt.
I was reluctant to leave the county paper lying around, with columns like these. My teens were really miffed to discover that other homeschooled kids are allowed to sleep late and play in the dirt all day. They had some hard questions about why I made them come to history class at 7:00 a.m. for so many years.
Mason attempts to deflect any objections to her column with the caveat that there are some good homeschool families, and she is not talking about them. Yet, for the length of two articles she goes on about homeschool families who live in trailers, are unemployed, and allow their children to play in the dirt all day long.
In seventeen years of homeschooling, I have never met the homeschool families Mason describes. In fact, Mason’s first homeschool column does not feature a single homeschool family. Instead, she writes about public school parents who cannot make it to school on time, who pay the cable bill but neglect the power bill, and who buy tattoos instead of shoes. If these accusations are drawn from actual cases in our county, Mason should be under fire for printing them in the county paper rather than adhering to confidentiality. If they are not actual scenarios, then they are just lies.
If the stories are true, they are stories of public school parents. When these parents are threatened with court action for their children’s tardies, they remind the county social worker that public education is not mandatory; they can always homeschool their children if they so choose. Mason thinks it is terrible that parents have this freedom and “there is nothing I can do.”
Is it really a bad thing that parents have a way to push back? They are our children, after all. The public school system sometimes behaves like a bureaucratic bully, running over individuals. I have a daughter in public school this year. She's a straight-A high school student working a year ahead of others her age. I still have to stand up for her to get her needs met. I am nice about it, but it goes without saying that if the school system does not offer this brilliant student the opportunities she deserves, they will lose her back to homeschooling.
Homeschooling is not a privilege. Rather, the public school is the one enjoying the privilege of having my talented daughter among their students. Granted, it is not too much to ask that she be to school on time! And she is. But the principle is the same: Families who do not get what they need and want from the public school system have the right to use private or homeschooling instead.
If a particular family needs a different schedule than the public school offers, homeschooling is one way to do that. So long as the child is learning, why should it matter whether classes are held during the morning, afternoon or evening? Learning is organic, and is not really confined to hours or classrooms.What we sometimes forget in this whole discussion is that homeschooling isn't some novel idea. As in the breastfeeding/formula debate, homeschooling IS normal and has been practiced for thousands of years. Sending your kids off to school is the novel idea.
Even today, every parent on the planet homeschools for the first weeks, months or years of the child’s life. We teach our children to walk and talk, processes far more complex than anything learned in grades K-12, and no one suggests that ordinary parents are incapable of teaching their own children to do these things.
The school social worker does not like that public education is not mandatory. Education is mandatory, but not public education. Before homeschooling became popular again, parents did not know they had that option. Parents like the ones she describes (that is, poor) could not afford private education, so they were at the mercy of the public school system. Now, suddenly, parents who are pushed around are pushing back. They are saying, "No, you can't bully me, because the truth is my child doesn't have to be in your school in the first place." And on that score, they are correct.
#
This weekend my grandson came over to the house to play. Almost two years old, little Isaiah has a firmly set mission in life: To find whatever trouble he can, and thoroughly get into it. In our yard, he made a bee-line for the leaky water hose.
“You see what he’s doing?” I asked my daughter.
Moriah shrugged. “It’s just water . . . and mud. He’ll come clean.”
Isaiah picked up the hose and leaned over for a better look, inadvertently squirting himself in the face. He looked up at us, streams of water pouring from his fine blond hair. We were smiling, so he smiled back. He stared at the stream for a moment, and then started lapping at it like a puppy. We laughed while he drenched himself, eventually muddy up to his knees.
According to Catoosa County school social worker Sue Mason, we laughed because we are homeschoolers. We don’t know that children are not supposed to play in the dirt. In her scathing two-part article “My thoughts on homeschooling” and “Homeschooling: the dark side,” Mason presents an alternate reality in which parents homeschool their children just to sleep late and avoid responsibility while their children play in the dirt. I suppose she has never seen all those children on the school playground at recess, playing in the dirt.
I was reluctant to leave the county paper lying around, with columns like these. My teens were really miffed to discover that other homeschooled kids are allowed to sleep late and play in the dirt all day. They had some hard questions about why I made them come to history class at 7:00 a.m. for so many years.
Mason attempts to deflect any objections to her column with the caveat that there are some good homeschool families, and she is not talking about them. Yet, for the length of two articles she goes on about homeschool families who live in trailers, are unemployed, and allow their children to play in the dirt all day long.
In seventeen years of homeschooling, I have never met the homeschool families Mason describes. In fact, Mason’s first homeschool column does not feature a single homeschool family. Instead, she writes about public school parents who cannot make it to school on time, who pay the cable bill but neglect the power bill, and who buy tattoos instead of shoes. If these accusations are drawn from actual cases in our county, Mason should be under fire for printing them in the county paper rather than adhering to confidentiality. If they are not actual scenarios, then they are just lies.
If the stories are true, they are stories of public school parents. When these parents are threatened with court action for their children’s tardies, they remind the county social worker that public education is not mandatory; they can always homeschool their children if they so choose. Mason thinks it is terrible that parents have this freedom and “there is nothing I can do.”
Is it really a bad thing that parents have a way to push back? They are our children, after all. The public school system sometimes behaves like a bureaucratic bully, running over individuals. I have a daughter in public school this year. She's a straight-A high school student working a year ahead of others her age. I still have to stand up for her to get her needs met. I am nice about it, but it goes without saying that if the school system does not offer this brilliant student the opportunities she deserves, they will lose her back to homeschooling.
Homeschooling is not a privilege. Rather, the public school is the one enjoying the privilege of having my talented daughter among their students. Granted, it is not too much to ask that she be to school on time! And she is. But the principle is the same: Families who do not get what they need and want from the public school system have the right to use private or homeschooling instead.
If a particular family needs a different schedule than the public school offers, homeschooling is one way to do that. So long as the child is learning, why should it matter whether classes are held during the morning, afternoon or evening? Learning is organic, and is not really confined to hours or classrooms.What we sometimes forget in this whole discussion is that homeschooling isn't some novel idea. As in the breastfeeding/formula debate, homeschooling IS normal and has been practiced for thousands of years. Sending your kids off to school is the novel idea.
Even today, every parent on the planet homeschools for the first weeks, months or years of the child’s life. We teach our children to walk and talk, processes far more complex than anything learned in grades K-12, and no one suggests that ordinary parents are incapable of teaching their own children to do these things.
The school social worker does not like that public education is not mandatory. Education is mandatory, but not public education. Before homeschooling became popular again, parents did not know they had that option. Parents like the ones she describes (that is, poor) could not afford private education, so they were at the mercy of the public school system. Now, suddenly, parents who are pushed around are pushing back. They are saying, "No, you can't bully me, because the truth is my child doesn't have to be in your school in the first place." And on that score, they are correct.
#
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Kids Today
Is there hope for the next generation?
Whether we are parents, teachers, or just adults observing teenagers at the mall or the movie theater, it is easy to give in to the sentiment that “kids today” are a real mess, and therefore our society is headed for trouble. Major news carriers have nothing good to say about young people. Drugs are epidemic. The drop-out rate soars. Journalists warn us that young people today not only do not want to wait for marriage; they do not even wait for a date. Dating has supposedly been replaced with “hooking up.” Girls have gone wild. Boys are all drunk or on drugs, or both.
Are we headed for a societal meltdown at the hands of the next generation? I think not.
Sure, I have seen the statistics on teen sex, drop-outs and drugs. I’ve also read about the Sixties and the Seventies, and I remember the Eighties and Nineties quite well. We may give practices a new name, but “hooking up” is not substantially different from “free love” or a “one-night stand.” About half of teens are sexually active, just like before. The drop-out rate is no better, no worse. The teen pregnancy made a small surge during Bush’s administration but has been steadily declining over all. The abortion rate has actually fallen. Teen smoking is at a ten-year low.
As in previous generations, only a portion of young people are engaged in the practices that scare adults to death. CosmoGirl recently shocked the nation by claiming that 1 out of 5 teenagers photograph themselves naked. Nobody mentioned the flipside also revealed by the survey: 4 out of 5 teens refrain from the practice, despite having the means and encountering the same pressure from friends, magazines and billboards. By focusing on the outrageous and the sensational, media outlets create panic. Apparently, that’s what sells papers and keeps viewers watching.
The younger generation is obsessed with computers, cell phones and iPods. It’s true. I finally realized that if I wanted to have a meaningful relationship with my adult daughter, I must add a texting plan to my phone. Calls are neither answered nor returned in this age of instant-everything and thumb typing. Young people are more computer-literate than ever, but we tend to focus on the negative aspects of this. We mutter about English literacy when we read, “How R U?” and fail to recognize that our kids are learning a shorthand that is just as valid as that used by Ham radio operators and telegraphers of old. We’re befuddled when kids get around parental controls, and forget to appreciate their intelligence and ingenuity.
Parents are not the only ones who focus on the negative. Media outlets routinely play up teenage delinquency, even as they ignore millions of American teens who are smart, strong, responsible and ambitious. When have you ever watched a TV special about the millions of teens who use the Internet responsibly to further their education, keep in touch with friends and learn about their world, without putting themselves in harm’s way? Yet it happens every single day.
Condemning next generation is as old as time. Even during the Pax Romana there was great concern about a rising crop of lazy youth who did not understand the value of work or the importance of politics. Maybe it’s a sort of amnesia on the part of adults. We forget what it was like to be young. We remember our hard work to bring up a grade, but not all the homework we missed that put us in that position to begin with. Did we really understand hard work, appreciate money, or have a strong grasp of the reality of consequences of sixteen?
In many ways, this generation is just like any other. There will be slackers who stay home with mom and dad, criminals, and those who feel entitled. There will be leaders and lovers, givers and takers.
If we are honest about our own generation, we have more slackers, drug addicts, welfare bums, and criminals among the adult population than among the teens in our community. Society progresses forward at the behest of a great team of hardworking but ordinary folks, while a few bright leaders show the way. This is how it has always been, and this is how it always will be.
Teenagers I know give me many reasons to hope for a better tomorrow. They write novels, put on plays, sew their own costumes, revive old styles of music, and read Goethe’s Faust just for fun. They jump hurdles, volunteer with disabled children, assist political campaigns, compose music and win scholarships. Many of them are one or two years ahead in their studies.
Amazing teens are all around us, even if their stories don’t make front page. In 2007, a teenage girl became the first female Georgia Fiddle King, putting old timers to shame with her rendition of “I Don’t Love Nobody.” I know a young man who plows with oxen. When his sister was a teenager, she started her own business canning and selling jellies. Just this week, a Ringgold High School student made a perfect 800 on the Math SAT. A few months ago, a middle school student revolutionized solar energy collection, defying generations of scientists who said it could not be done.
As a whole, teens are smarter now than we were back then. They learn more math and science in lower grades. They know more about international issues, and have a greater commitment to problems like global warming. They even know how to program the VCR.
Let’s face it; our children may be smarter than we are. They have a different starting point than we do. Older generations developed the Internet, but these kids were born in the age of Wi-Fi. They cannot imagine a world without those connections, and they will build on them, taking technology farther than we ever dreamed. Their thinking is not tangled in landlines and cable wires. Their world is not linear. While we have reached the edges of our imagination, they have only just begun.
What will the world be like when these young people gain control? It will be global, connected, instant, and intolerant of intolerance. Tomorrow’s entrepreneurs will focus on removing barriers, growing community, and sharing resources. They will create platforms rather than hierarchies.
Tomorrow’s leaders will tackle the problems they inherited from us, including a damaged economy, a ravaged ecology, and a world at war. All those hours spent online and on the cell phone may translate to diplomacy rather than deployment. Unfettered by prejudices, they inhabit a word both larger and smaller than ours. They will succeed where we failed – and they will fail where we succeeded – and all in all, the world will keep spinning.
#
Whether we are parents, teachers, or just adults observing teenagers at the mall or the movie theater, it is easy to give in to the sentiment that “kids today” are a real mess, and therefore our society is headed for trouble. Major news carriers have nothing good to say about young people. Drugs are epidemic. The drop-out rate soars. Journalists warn us that young people today not only do not want to wait for marriage; they do not even wait for a date. Dating has supposedly been replaced with “hooking up.” Girls have gone wild. Boys are all drunk or on drugs, or both.
Are we headed for a societal meltdown at the hands of the next generation? I think not.
Sure, I have seen the statistics on teen sex, drop-outs and drugs. I’ve also read about the Sixties and the Seventies, and I remember the Eighties and Nineties quite well. We may give practices a new name, but “hooking up” is not substantially different from “free love” or a “one-night stand.” About half of teens are sexually active, just like before. The drop-out rate is no better, no worse. The teen pregnancy made a small surge during Bush’s administration but has been steadily declining over all. The abortion rate has actually fallen. Teen smoking is at a ten-year low.
As in previous generations, only a portion of young people are engaged in the practices that scare adults to death. CosmoGirl recently shocked the nation by claiming that 1 out of 5 teenagers photograph themselves naked. Nobody mentioned the flipside also revealed by the survey: 4 out of 5 teens refrain from the practice, despite having the means and encountering the same pressure from friends, magazines and billboards. By focusing on the outrageous and the sensational, media outlets create panic. Apparently, that’s what sells papers and keeps viewers watching.
The younger generation is obsessed with computers, cell phones and iPods. It’s true. I finally realized that if I wanted to have a meaningful relationship with my adult daughter, I must add a texting plan to my phone. Calls are neither answered nor returned in this age of instant-everything and thumb typing. Young people are more computer-literate than ever, but we tend to focus on the negative aspects of this. We mutter about English literacy when we read, “How R U?” and fail to recognize that our kids are learning a shorthand that is just as valid as that used by Ham radio operators and telegraphers of old. We’re befuddled when kids get around parental controls, and forget to appreciate their intelligence and ingenuity.
Parents are not the only ones who focus on the negative. Media outlets routinely play up teenage delinquency, even as they ignore millions of American teens who are smart, strong, responsible and ambitious. When have you ever watched a TV special about the millions of teens who use the Internet responsibly to further their education, keep in touch with friends and learn about their world, without putting themselves in harm’s way? Yet it happens every single day.
Condemning next generation is as old as time. Even during the Pax Romana there was great concern about a rising crop of lazy youth who did not understand the value of work or the importance of politics. Maybe it’s a sort of amnesia on the part of adults. We forget what it was like to be young. We remember our hard work to bring up a grade, but not all the homework we missed that put us in that position to begin with. Did we really understand hard work, appreciate money, or have a strong grasp of the reality of consequences of sixteen?
In many ways, this generation is just like any other. There will be slackers who stay home with mom and dad, criminals, and those who feel entitled. There will be leaders and lovers, givers and takers.
If we are honest about our own generation, we have more slackers, drug addicts, welfare bums, and criminals among the adult population than among the teens in our community. Society progresses forward at the behest of a great team of hardworking but ordinary folks, while a few bright leaders show the way. This is how it has always been, and this is how it always will be.
Teenagers I know give me many reasons to hope for a better tomorrow. They write novels, put on plays, sew their own costumes, revive old styles of music, and read Goethe’s Faust just for fun. They jump hurdles, volunteer with disabled children, assist political campaigns, compose music and win scholarships. Many of them are one or two years ahead in their studies.
Amazing teens are all around us, even if their stories don’t make front page. In 2007, a teenage girl became the first female Georgia Fiddle King, putting old timers to shame with her rendition of “I Don’t Love Nobody.” I know a young man who plows with oxen. When his sister was a teenager, she started her own business canning and selling jellies. Just this week, a Ringgold High School student made a perfect 800 on the Math SAT. A few months ago, a middle school student revolutionized solar energy collection, defying generations of scientists who said it could not be done.
As a whole, teens are smarter now than we were back then. They learn more math and science in lower grades. They know more about international issues, and have a greater commitment to problems like global warming. They even know how to program the VCR.
Let’s face it; our children may be smarter than we are. They have a different starting point than we do. Older generations developed the Internet, but these kids were born in the age of Wi-Fi. They cannot imagine a world without those connections, and they will build on them, taking technology farther than we ever dreamed. Their thinking is not tangled in landlines and cable wires. Their world is not linear. While we have reached the edges of our imagination, they have only just begun.
What will the world be like when these young people gain control? It will be global, connected, instant, and intolerant of intolerance. Tomorrow’s entrepreneurs will focus on removing barriers, growing community, and sharing resources. They will create platforms rather than hierarchies.
Tomorrow’s leaders will tackle the problems they inherited from us, including a damaged economy, a ravaged ecology, and a world at war. All those hours spent online and on the cell phone may translate to diplomacy rather than deployment. Unfettered by prejudices, they inhabit a word both larger and smaller than ours. They will succeed where we failed – and they will fail where we succeeded – and all in all, the world will keep spinning.
#
Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama inauguration offers living history lesson
Many Georgia educators let the opportunity slide
On a Sunday afternoon, I watched via Internet as Barack Obama roared toward Washington, D.C. to the take the oath of office. Styling himself as a modern Abraham Lincoln, our new president retraced the pre-inauguration train journey traveled in 1861. At every stop, huge crowds braved sub-zero temperatures to catch a glimpse of the new leader of the free world, or to shout “Yes, We Can!” as the train rolls by.
As I watched that train roll toward the capitol, I thought of my friend Martha Archie. At birth she was named Martha Moss, and she grew up here in Ringgold, where her family is well-known and well-respected in the community. She graduated in 1964, the same year as both my parents. Yet even in this small town, my parents never met Martha Moss when they were teens. As an African-American, Martha Moss could not attend Ringgold High School.
Wilson High School was the school designated for students with darker skin. Situated down the hill from Ringgold High School (now the Middle School), Wilson offered education that was supposed to be “separate but equal.”
We were decorating a float for the Christmas parade the first time I heard of Wilson High School. Martha pointed out where Wilson High was housed, in what is now the ROTC building. Standing in the frigid wind with balloons in both hands, I cast my gaze from one school toward the other, and tried to imagine how two worlds could be so close and yet so segregated.
I should have realized there would have been two schools in my hometown, just as there were all across the South. I knew my parents lived through segregation and desegregation. My mother had told me about the separate drinking fountains in public places. As a child too young to understand, my mother had begged to drink from the fountain labeled “COLORED.” She thought the water would be tinted all the colors of the rainbow.
It is easier to imagine those things happened in Chattanooga, or down in Atlanta, or somewhere off in Alabama or Mississippi. We tend to downplay the history of racial tensions in our own hometowns. Certainly we would rather focus on the positive, like the gymnasium at Ringgold High School which is named after a black athlete. Neither do we like to remember that the KKK marched these streets not so long ago, and that black families in Ringgold were threatened in the 1960’s and even subjected to domestic terrorism that killed a mother in her bed.
We thirty-somethings do not go back that far. It’s difficult for us to comprehend how bad things really were. Today students of every skin tone mingle in the school yards. We have a city council that cares about all citizens, enough to remove a symbol that offends the black community. Then we see Barack Obama waving from the train car, and placing his hand on Lincoln’s inaugural Bible.
“Young people don’t understand how significant this is,” Martha told me the night of the parade. “They don’t remember what it was like, when you couldn’t even walk into a place and eat dinner.”
One reason young people don’t remember is because we, as a society, do not teach them. During all my years in Ringgold High School, no one ever spoke of Wilson High School. It was as if the black school had never existed, never left any imprint on this community, and did not even deserve acknowledgement.
No wonder American education lacks relevancy. We focus on the distant past that can be sanitized and analyzed, while ignoring the messy situations and overlapping voices that form real human history.
Students learn about Columbus every single year, but rarely are they taught about Clinton or Bush. Other powerful political figures like Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove, Jesse Jackson and Dick Cheney hardly enter the classroom conversation, even though they have an enormous impact on our society and our world. Students learn how to calculate the height of a flag pole by measuring its shadow, but not how the World Trade Towers could have been protected from terrorism. They learn that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not just slavery, but they do not learn how to articulate both sides of the Iraq controversy.
Individual teachers cannot be blamed for a problem that is systematic. Georgia public education requires that every student in Georgia pass the same end-of-course tests. The advantage of the testing is that it standardizes Georgia education so that a diploma from one school is roughly equal to a diploma from another. The disadvantage is that it pressures teachers to neglect creativity and relevancy in favor of homogeny and “teaching to the test.” Standardization seeks to make all students the same, not better.
Students need to learn what is going on in the world right now. They need to read newspapers in the classroom. They need to have sources like National Geographic at their disposal –not just buried in the library, but open on their desks. NPR and CNN should be played in the classroom from time to time.
The inauguration of Barack Obama was a watershed moment in American history. Whether you love him or hate him, he has changed the face of American politics forever. In Washington, millions gathered to experience it.
Around the country, many homeschool parents seized the opportunity to teach their children about the political process all year long. They printed maps for their children to color as the state-by-state election results came in. They took their children on the campaign trail for one of the candidates. Not constrained by having to board a school bus at dawn, many homeschooled students stayed up to watch the election results rolling in at midnight. On January 20th, most of those families turned on the TV to witness America once again transfer power without violence.
Likewise, in a few public and private school classrooms, resourceful teachers do make a point of teaching students about politics without indoctrinating them. On Tuesday, some of those teachers recognized the importance of the moment, and turned on the TV. Sadly, others did not. In fact, some Georgia schools were forced by parents to offer an alternative activity, because parents protested that the inauguration was not educational. Other schools just failed to see the significance of the event and did not plan accordingly.
Nothing else that happened on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, held more educational significance than the inauguration of a new American President. How could printed words in a textbook compare to watching history unfold before us? The speeches delivered at the inauguration contained compelling history lessons, even as they became part of that recorded history. Art, music, poetry, prose and architecture were on display. Most of the important political figures whose names are not being taught at these schools were standing in the audience with their families. The event presented a massive array of teaching opportunities on politics, history, culture, literature, science and math.
Of my six children, only one attends public school. She is the only one who was prevented from watching the inauguration. Next election, I will be keeping my children home so they can learn.
#
On a Sunday afternoon, I watched via Internet as Barack Obama roared toward Washington, D.C. to the take the oath of office. Styling himself as a modern Abraham Lincoln, our new president retraced the pre-inauguration train journey traveled in 1861. At every stop, huge crowds braved sub-zero temperatures to catch a glimpse of the new leader of the free world, or to shout “Yes, We Can!” as the train rolls by.
As I watched that train roll toward the capitol, I thought of my friend Martha Archie. At birth she was named Martha Moss, and she grew up here in Ringgold, where her family is well-known and well-respected in the community. She graduated in 1964, the same year as both my parents. Yet even in this small town, my parents never met Martha Moss when they were teens. As an African-American, Martha Moss could not attend Ringgold High School.
Wilson High School was the school designated for students with darker skin. Situated down the hill from Ringgold High School (now the Middle School), Wilson offered education that was supposed to be “separate but equal.”
We were decorating a float for the Christmas parade the first time I heard of Wilson High School. Martha pointed out where Wilson High was housed, in what is now the ROTC building. Standing in the frigid wind with balloons in both hands, I cast my gaze from one school toward the other, and tried to imagine how two worlds could be so close and yet so segregated.
I should have realized there would have been two schools in my hometown, just as there were all across the South. I knew my parents lived through segregation and desegregation. My mother had told me about the separate drinking fountains in public places. As a child too young to understand, my mother had begged to drink from the fountain labeled “COLORED.” She thought the water would be tinted all the colors of the rainbow.
It is easier to imagine those things happened in Chattanooga, or down in Atlanta, or somewhere off in Alabama or Mississippi. We tend to downplay the history of racial tensions in our own hometowns. Certainly we would rather focus on the positive, like the gymnasium at Ringgold High School which is named after a black athlete. Neither do we like to remember that the KKK marched these streets not so long ago, and that black families in Ringgold were threatened in the 1960’s and even subjected to domestic terrorism that killed a mother in her bed.
We thirty-somethings do not go back that far. It’s difficult for us to comprehend how bad things really were. Today students of every skin tone mingle in the school yards. We have a city council that cares about all citizens, enough to remove a symbol that offends the black community. Then we see Barack Obama waving from the train car, and placing his hand on Lincoln’s inaugural Bible.
“Young people don’t understand how significant this is,” Martha told me the night of the parade. “They don’t remember what it was like, when you couldn’t even walk into a place and eat dinner.”
One reason young people don’t remember is because we, as a society, do not teach them. During all my years in Ringgold High School, no one ever spoke of Wilson High School. It was as if the black school had never existed, never left any imprint on this community, and did not even deserve acknowledgement.
No wonder American education lacks relevancy. We focus on the distant past that can be sanitized and analyzed, while ignoring the messy situations and overlapping voices that form real human history.
Students learn about Columbus every single year, but rarely are they taught about Clinton or Bush. Other powerful political figures like Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove, Jesse Jackson and Dick Cheney hardly enter the classroom conversation, even though they have an enormous impact on our society and our world. Students learn how to calculate the height of a flag pole by measuring its shadow, but not how the World Trade Towers could have been protected from terrorism. They learn that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not just slavery, but they do not learn how to articulate both sides of the Iraq controversy.
Individual teachers cannot be blamed for a problem that is systematic. Georgia public education requires that every student in Georgia pass the same end-of-course tests. The advantage of the testing is that it standardizes Georgia education so that a diploma from one school is roughly equal to a diploma from another. The disadvantage is that it pressures teachers to neglect creativity and relevancy in favor of homogeny and “teaching to the test.” Standardization seeks to make all students the same, not better.
Students need to learn what is going on in the world right now. They need to read newspapers in the classroom. They need to have sources like National Geographic at their disposal –not just buried in the library, but open on their desks. NPR and CNN should be played in the classroom from time to time.
The inauguration of Barack Obama was a watershed moment in American history. Whether you love him or hate him, he has changed the face of American politics forever. In Washington, millions gathered to experience it.
Around the country, many homeschool parents seized the opportunity to teach their children about the political process all year long. They printed maps for their children to color as the state-by-state election results came in. They took their children on the campaign trail for one of the candidates. Not constrained by having to board a school bus at dawn, many homeschooled students stayed up to watch the election results rolling in at midnight. On January 20th, most of those families turned on the TV to witness America once again transfer power without violence.
Likewise, in a few public and private school classrooms, resourceful teachers do make a point of teaching students about politics without indoctrinating them. On Tuesday, some of those teachers recognized the importance of the moment, and turned on the TV. Sadly, others did not. In fact, some Georgia schools were forced by parents to offer an alternative activity, because parents protested that the inauguration was not educational. Other schools just failed to see the significance of the event and did not plan accordingly.
Nothing else that happened on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, held more educational significance than the inauguration of a new American President. How could printed words in a textbook compare to watching history unfold before us? The speeches delivered at the inauguration contained compelling history lessons, even as they became part of that recorded history. Art, music, poetry, prose and architecture were on display. Most of the important political figures whose names are not being taught at these schools were standing in the audience with their families. The event presented a massive array of teaching opportunities on politics, history, culture, literature, science and math.
Of my six children, only one attends public school. She is the only one who was prevented from watching the inauguration. Next election, I will be keeping my children home so they can learn.
#
Friday, December 26, 2008
The Musician's Mother
In the stage lights she comes alive, blinking and smiling as if emerging from a chrysalis. It is there I see her as she will be, confident and consummate, no longer the fifteen-year-old being lectured about her cell phone, or the sister arguing whose turn it is to wash dishes.
On the stage, she is in her element. Everything else is just an interlude between performances. She swims through the delicious tension, her eyes running over the assembled crowd. She speaks and her voice comes back to her through the amplifiers. She inhales, growing larger. She sings and the world smiles. She plays her fiddle and the bright lilting notes lift us in our seats.
At home in her room, in the basement, on the porch or on the roof, she fills hours and days with the same strokes, scratched out in maddening succession. I cup my hands around my mouth, leaning toward the stairs or out the window. “Slow it down! I can’t listen as fast you can play!”
There is silence for a moment and I picture her bow poised over the strings, tiny snowflakes of rosin sifting to the dark wood. Finally she shouts back, “I don’t know it slow!”
Later she tells me she does not know the notes at all. She says the music is in her fingers, not in her head.
I watch her now, gathering the heat of the stage lights and the chaotic energy of the small crowd. It courses through her body and flows out through two hands – the fingers of one moving subtly over the neck of the fiddle while the other hand lightly grasps the bow, wrist undulating as she saws the strings. The remnants of that energy escape through swaying hips and tapping foot.
I follow the notes – I know them better than my own heartbeat, although I could not squeeze two in a row from those alien strings. Perhaps they are my heartbeat. And when she is gone – don't think of it! -- the melody will play on in my head. It will be the music of my days, energizing my steps lest I falter. It will course through my veins, so that I grow with each breath and do not melt in the emptiness she has left behind.
Yes, she will move on to other adventures, other cultures, other loves. I will be someone she has to remember. We won't finish each other's sentences, or reach across the table for the same dish. She will be a voice on the phone, or a tiny string of text, enigmatic at times, as her life unfolds.
I try to picture her in the settings she has imagined aloud. I see her in an antiseptic room, blue eyes burning bright between cap and mask. I see her gloved hands aloft, bright with blood. Is this the child I have raised, fearlessly facing down death each day?
Or is this my child, in a dusty foreign land, surrounded by children with eyes as big as moons? I look at the hands that play the fiddle. I watch what tiny and precise movements create sound out of silence. The notes break across the crowd, and we are moved. Are these not hands that heal?
I imagine her in a chapel, slanted evening light illuminating a soft veil laid over her maple-colored curls. It occurs to me again that I cannot in good conscience say “Her father and I” if some preacher asks “Who gives this woman?” How can I give away what was never mine? If she were mine, I would hold her like a jewel burning cool in the palm of my hand. It might show you my jewel, but I would never turn over my fist, open my fingers and empty something so precious into your palm.
But she was never mine. I knew it the first time I held her, wriggling and bloody, against my body. This was not the child I had imagined growing in the womb, a part of me, an extension of myself. No. The little being who gazed up at me with curious sparkling eyes was a stranger here.
I know I am not alone. Every mother must feel that she has become the portal of angels. She kisses her baby's mottled head, and finds that the child does not smell of earth. A tinny cry makes music so soft, she cannot imagine how anyone could mind the sound of a baby crying in the night. She cannot fathom that this sweet infant will become the screaming, pounding little savage who dumps the fish bowl on the bed – again.
Yet the sweet-smelling infant and the brutal fish-killer are one being, moving through the world touching and tasting, gulping at the strange sweet air that is foreign but familiar, too. And somewhere nearby, a mother's watchful eyes drink in all those memories, the same way the child is drinking in the world.
When I was a child, I always wondered about the Virgin Mary. How could she wipe that perpetually dripping nose and clean that little bottom and still have faith that the boy on her lap was not an ordinary child or even a prophet, but actually God in human flesh? Then I became a mother, and I understood. It is no great feat for a woman to look at her child and feel something kin to worship.
Her dancing feet and peals of laughter proved what I knew. She was no mere mortal, no smartly packaged glob of cells and chromosomes. I called her Twinkle Toes. She danced in my arms. The music was always in her – or it was out there, perhaps, waiting like flowers to be gathered.
The long fingers that grasp the bow were once soft and dimpled. I close my eyes and see that little hand reaching back for me. A thousand times she ran ahead, always spotting some new adventure. But then the copper-colored locks bounced over her shoulder as she looked back.
“Hold me hand!” she sang, dark lashes fluttering over eyes as big as the sky. “Hold me hand!” I rushed forward to place my finger in her grasp, wondering where she would lead me.
#
On the stage, she is in her element. Everything else is just an interlude between performances. She swims through the delicious tension, her eyes running over the assembled crowd. She speaks and her voice comes back to her through the amplifiers. She inhales, growing larger. She sings and the world smiles. She plays her fiddle and the bright lilting notes lift us in our seats.
At home in her room, in the basement, on the porch or on the roof, she fills hours and days with the same strokes, scratched out in maddening succession. I cup my hands around my mouth, leaning toward the stairs or out the window. “Slow it down! I can’t listen as fast you can play!”
There is silence for a moment and I picture her bow poised over the strings, tiny snowflakes of rosin sifting to the dark wood. Finally she shouts back, “I don’t know it slow!”
Later she tells me she does not know the notes at all. She says the music is in her fingers, not in her head.
I watch her now, gathering the heat of the stage lights and the chaotic energy of the small crowd. It courses through her body and flows out through two hands – the fingers of one moving subtly over the neck of the fiddle while the other hand lightly grasps the bow, wrist undulating as she saws the strings. The remnants of that energy escape through swaying hips and tapping foot.
I follow the notes – I know them better than my own heartbeat, although I could not squeeze two in a row from those alien strings. Perhaps they are my heartbeat. And when she is gone – don't think of it! -- the melody will play on in my head. It will be the music of my days, energizing my steps lest I falter. It will course through my veins, so that I grow with each breath and do not melt in the emptiness she has left behind.
Yes, she will move on to other adventures, other cultures, other loves. I will be someone she has to remember. We won't finish each other's sentences, or reach across the table for the same dish. She will be a voice on the phone, or a tiny string of text, enigmatic at times, as her life unfolds.
I try to picture her in the settings she has imagined aloud. I see her in an antiseptic room, blue eyes burning bright between cap and mask. I see her gloved hands aloft, bright with blood. Is this the child I have raised, fearlessly facing down death each day?
Or is this my child, in a dusty foreign land, surrounded by children with eyes as big as moons? I look at the hands that play the fiddle. I watch what tiny and precise movements create sound out of silence. The notes break across the crowd, and we are moved. Are these not hands that heal?
I imagine her in a chapel, slanted evening light illuminating a soft veil laid over her maple-colored curls. It occurs to me again that I cannot in good conscience say “Her father and I” if some preacher asks “Who gives this woman?” How can I give away what was never mine? If she were mine, I would hold her like a jewel burning cool in the palm of my hand. It might show you my jewel, but I would never turn over my fist, open my fingers and empty something so precious into your palm.
But she was never mine. I knew it the first time I held her, wriggling and bloody, against my body. This was not the child I had imagined growing in the womb, a part of me, an extension of myself. No. The little being who gazed up at me with curious sparkling eyes was a stranger here.
I know I am not alone. Every mother must feel that she has become the portal of angels. She kisses her baby's mottled head, and finds that the child does not smell of earth. A tinny cry makes music so soft, she cannot imagine how anyone could mind the sound of a baby crying in the night. She cannot fathom that this sweet infant will become the screaming, pounding little savage who dumps the fish bowl on the bed – again.
Yet the sweet-smelling infant and the brutal fish-killer are one being, moving through the world touching and tasting, gulping at the strange sweet air that is foreign but familiar, too. And somewhere nearby, a mother's watchful eyes drink in all those memories, the same way the child is drinking in the world.
When I was a child, I always wondered about the Virgin Mary. How could she wipe that perpetually dripping nose and clean that little bottom and still have faith that the boy on her lap was not an ordinary child or even a prophet, but actually God in human flesh? Then I became a mother, and I understood. It is no great feat for a woman to look at her child and feel something kin to worship.
Her dancing feet and peals of laughter proved what I knew. She was no mere mortal, no smartly packaged glob of cells and chromosomes. I called her Twinkle Toes. She danced in my arms. The music was always in her – or it was out there, perhaps, waiting like flowers to be gathered.
The long fingers that grasp the bow were once soft and dimpled. I close my eyes and see that little hand reaching back for me. A thousand times she ran ahead, always spotting some new adventure. But then the copper-colored locks bounced over her shoulder as she looked back.
“Hold me hand!” she sang, dark lashes fluttering over eyes as big as the sky. “Hold me hand!” I rushed forward to place my finger in her grasp, wondering where she would lead me.
#
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Obscure parenting tips
For the creative and the desperate
As the parents of six children, Derek and I are always in the market for creative parenting ideas. Today I will share a few things we have learned along the way.
If you have a metal door, you have a great spot to use one of the many Upwards or honor student magnets cluttering up the clutter drawer. (Or use your “My child beat up your honor student” magnet, if that’s all you have). Stick it on the door as a holder for whatever you need on the way out next morning – an SAT admission ticket, that field trip permission slip that was due yesterday, or even a note to buy toilet paper.
Circle spider bites with a permanent marker. That way you can tell whether they are growing or shrinking. (Hat tip to Pastor Mendy McNulty for this one.)
Don’t ask a child to explain why he did something, unless you honestly do not know. A person cannot indict himself, so asking this question only encourages him to assign himself new motivations after the fact. Parents call this “making excuses,” but to a child it is a matter of protecting his self-esteem.
When children ask “Why?” always tell them why. Make the explanation thorough. Serious inquiries deserve a thorough answer. Children with other motives for asking “Why?” get bored with the lengthy response and often give up the mantra.
For teens and pre-teens, I prefer to blame unpopular parenting decisions on John Tesh. My children may be unique in their fascination with Tesh’s “Intelligence for Your Life” radio program, but I find they are reluctant to argue with the man. It works like this: “Look, sweetie, I know that you personally would never text-message under the covers after bedtime. But John Tesh says everybody sleeps better if the cell phones charge on the kitchen counter every night – no exceptions.” This works for most parent-teen conflicts, and you need not listen to all the shows to use it. If it makes sense, John Tesh probably did say it, some time or other.
Traveling with young children is filled with surprises, and not always the happy kind. Since leaving behind the diaper bag a few times, we’ve learned to keep a family emergency kit in every car. Hopefully you already have jumper cables, a jack, and other tools, but this kit is for the people in the car. It should contain everything you would need if for some reason your family were trapped in the car. Ours includes wet wipes, diapers, clean socks, toilet paper, bandages, bottled water, crayons, coloring books and individually wrapped crackers.
The best road trip entertainment we have found is a classic Carpenter’s CD. The mellow tunes calm nerves and make life more pleasant. My five-year-old is especially fond of “Sing a Song,” which she calls “La la la la.” She will often request it. When she is grumpy, she asks us not to play it. “I’m not going to start singing,” she says, crossing her arms, “You can’t make me la la la la.” We shrug and promise that no one will make her sing. And then we hear Christianna’s thin little voice join in, and we all smile.
When all else fails, moo. It was only a hunch, or perhaps an instinct. One day as we were trying to get home, a certain irate toddler was screaming bloody murder because she did not care to sit in the car seat. I had tried all the normal distractions – talking, singing, stopping the car to take her for a walk, bribery, threats, cutting her out of the will, etc. At last, in desperation, I uttered a low-pitched moo. My teenage driver shot me a sideways glance and then wisely joined the mooing. Soon the entire car was filled with the sounds of calm, happy cattle. Finally the toddler stopped her high-pitched screams to utter “Mooooooo.”
The most important advice I would give to a new parent is this: Never trust anyone who is selling something. Many of the implements and gadgets touted to make parenting easier just create more parenting jobs. Plastic baby bathtubs are a great example. As a new parent, I thought that little over-the-sink tub was an essential parenting item. I’ve since realized a baby bathtub is just another thing to clean and store. It is much easier to take your baby into the bath with you whenever you wash up. It makes a nice, relaxing activity and there’s no wet baby furniture to clean up afterward.
Remember that baby bottle manufacturers are also selling something. Don’t believe the makers of alien-shaped bottle nipples labeled “more like mom.” No human female has appendages shaped like that. Baby bottles and artificial nipples contain chemicals that should never be ingested by an adult, much less a growing infant. They can also confuse young babies and interfere with their latch. In the rare case that an infant needs something other than breast milk, finger-feeding or spoon-feeding is typically safer than using a bottle.
The maker of baby formula who touts a product as “more like breast milk” is not trustworthy, either. These companies are selling something. When they distribute pamphlets claiming to provide breastfeeding tips, do not be fooled into believing they are actually advertising for their competition. These companies are financially dependent on breastfeeding problems and failures. They sell artificial milk, and they do so despite the knowledge that their product imparts innumerable health risks to your baby. Toss their tips and trust the breastfeeding experts at La Leche League for infant feeding advice.
Of course, some commercial offerings can be a blessing. A simple, one-piece potty chair is helpful for young children. Opt for a model that puts the child in a near squatting position, like the Baby Bjorn. Place the potty in a convenient location, explain its presence, and afterward try not to bring up the subject often. As many veteran moms and dads have discovered, the idea of “training” a toddler to use the potty is frustrating, self-defeating and useless. For most children, “toilet training” is no more logical than setting up language lessons to teach a normal infant how to talk. It makes no more sense than pushing a baby to walk, ready-or-not, simply because he has hit the one-year milestone. With a lot of leeway and very little prodding, most children will work it out before they go to kindergarten.
Indeed, most skills and character traits are learned from modeling, not molding. That’s why parents who smoke have little success warning their children never to start. Children do need boundaries and consequences, but neither can substitute for the time a parent spends simply being a decent, responsible human being in front of the children.
Dr. Gary Smalley says that children spell love T-I-M-E. These days we try to assuage our guilt by focusing on “quality rather than quantity.” It’s great when parents schedule the time to take a child to the park, or go on a parent-child date just to talk about life. However, few children open up on demand. Open, honest communication often happens when we are not expecting or monitoring it. It happens in the car, on the way to the mailbox, or while the pasta is boiling.
Parents have a tough job because our children are always changing. We learn along with them, and what we learn with one child may not work for the next child. I wish I knew how to teach a child to blow her nose. If anyone knows the answer to this one, please send me a hint before the next allergen comes into bloom.
As the parents of six children, Derek and I are always in the market for creative parenting ideas. Today I will share a few things we have learned along the way.
If you have a metal door, you have a great spot to use one of the many Upwards or honor student magnets cluttering up the clutter drawer. (Or use your “My child beat up your honor student” magnet, if that’s all you have). Stick it on the door as a holder for whatever you need on the way out next morning – an SAT admission ticket, that field trip permission slip that was due yesterday, or even a note to buy toilet paper.
Circle spider bites with a permanent marker. That way you can tell whether they are growing or shrinking. (Hat tip to Pastor Mendy McNulty for this one.)
Don’t ask a child to explain why he did something, unless you honestly do not know. A person cannot indict himself, so asking this question only encourages him to assign himself new motivations after the fact. Parents call this “making excuses,” but to a child it is a matter of protecting his self-esteem.
When children ask “Why?” always tell them why. Make the explanation thorough. Serious inquiries deserve a thorough answer. Children with other motives for asking “Why?” get bored with the lengthy response and often give up the mantra.
For teens and pre-teens, I prefer to blame unpopular parenting decisions on John Tesh. My children may be unique in their fascination with Tesh’s “Intelligence for Your Life” radio program, but I find they are reluctant to argue with the man. It works like this: “Look, sweetie, I know that you personally would never text-message under the covers after bedtime. But John Tesh says everybody sleeps better if the cell phones charge on the kitchen counter every night – no exceptions.” This works for most parent-teen conflicts, and you need not listen to all the shows to use it. If it makes sense, John Tesh probably did say it, some time or other.
Traveling with young children is filled with surprises, and not always the happy kind. Since leaving behind the diaper bag a few times, we’ve learned to keep a family emergency kit in every car. Hopefully you already have jumper cables, a jack, and other tools, but this kit is for the people in the car. It should contain everything you would need if for some reason your family were trapped in the car. Ours includes wet wipes, diapers, clean socks, toilet paper, bandages, bottled water, crayons, coloring books and individually wrapped crackers.
The best road trip entertainment we have found is a classic Carpenter’s CD. The mellow tunes calm nerves and make life more pleasant. My five-year-old is especially fond of “Sing a Song,” which she calls “La la la la.” She will often request it. When she is grumpy, she asks us not to play it. “I’m not going to start singing,” she says, crossing her arms, “You can’t make me la la la la.” We shrug and promise that no one will make her sing. And then we hear Christianna’s thin little voice join in, and we all smile.
When all else fails, moo. It was only a hunch, or perhaps an instinct. One day as we were trying to get home, a certain irate toddler was screaming bloody murder because she did not care to sit in the car seat. I had tried all the normal distractions – talking, singing, stopping the car to take her for a walk, bribery, threats, cutting her out of the will, etc. At last, in desperation, I uttered a low-pitched moo. My teenage driver shot me a sideways glance and then wisely joined the mooing. Soon the entire car was filled with the sounds of calm, happy cattle. Finally the toddler stopped her high-pitched screams to utter “Mooooooo.”
The most important advice I would give to a new parent is this: Never trust anyone who is selling something. Many of the implements and gadgets touted to make parenting easier just create more parenting jobs. Plastic baby bathtubs are a great example. As a new parent, I thought that little over-the-sink tub was an essential parenting item. I’ve since realized a baby bathtub is just another thing to clean and store. It is much easier to take your baby into the bath with you whenever you wash up. It makes a nice, relaxing activity and there’s no wet baby furniture to clean up afterward.
Remember that baby bottle manufacturers are also selling something. Don’t believe the makers of alien-shaped bottle nipples labeled “more like mom.” No human female has appendages shaped like that. Baby bottles and artificial nipples contain chemicals that should never be ingested by an adult, much less a growing infant. They can also confuse young babies and interfere with their latch. In the rare case that an infant needs something other than breast milk, finger-feeding or spoon-feeding is typically safer than using a bottle.
The maker of baby formula who touts a product as “more like breast milk” is not trustworthy, either. These companies are selling something. When they distribute pamphlets claiming to provide breastfeeding tips, do not be fooled into believing they are actually advertising for their competition. These companies are financially dependent on breastfeeding problems and failures. They sell artificial milk, and they do so despite the knowledge that their product imparts innumerable health risks to your baby. Toss their tips and trust the breastfeeding experts at La Leche League for infant feeding advice.
Of course, some commercial offerings can be a blessing. A simple, one-piece potty chair is helpful for young children. Opt for a model that puts the child in a near squatting position, like the Baby Bjorn. Place the potty in a convenient location, explain its presence, and afterward try not to bring up the subject often. As many veteran moms and dads have discovered, the idea of “training” a toddler to use the potty is frustrating, self-defeating and useless. For most children, “toilet training” is no more logical than setting up language lessons to teach a normal infant how to talk. It makes no more sense than pushing a baby to walk, ready-or-not, simply because he has hit the one-year milestone. With a lot of leeway and very little prodding, most children will work it out before they go to kindergarten.
Indeed, most skills and character traits are learned from modeling, not molding. That’s why parents who smoke have little success warning their children never to start. Children do need boundaries and consequences, but neither can substitute for the time a parent spends simply being a decent, responsible human being in front of the children.
Dr. Gary Smalley says that children spell love T-I-M-E. These days we try to assuage our guilt by focusing on “quality rather than quantity.” It’s great when parents schedule the time to take a child to the park, or go on a parent-child date just to talk about life. However, few children open up on demand. Open, honest communication often happens when we are not expecting or monitoring it. It happens in the car, on the way to the mailbox, or while the pasta is boiling.
Parents have a tough job because our children are always changing. We learn along with them, and what we learn with one child may not work for the next child. I wish I knew how to teach a child to blow her nose. If anyone knows the answer to this one, please send me a hint before the next allergen comes into bloom.
Monday, February 25, 2008
ACOG says homebirth is a fashionable trend
Pregnant women read the writing on the wall
A few years ago I noticed a sign on the wall at a local women’s clinic. It stated “Our doctors will no longer perform VBAC.”
The sign made me laugh. VBAC stands for vaginal birth after cesarean. Since the doctors in that practice were males, it was difficult to imagine them performing a vaginal birth. Doctors do not perform vaginal births. Pregnant women do.
For women with past c-sections, the sign is not funny at all. This prohibition jettisons women’s rights back to the 1950’s when the mantra was “Once a cesarean, always a cesarean.” Women are being robbed of a fundamental childbirth choice, even though studies confirm the safety of VBAC for most women.
Healthy People 2010 urges doctors to cut the cesarean rate in half, from over 30% down to 15% by 2010. According to Dr. Marsden Wagner, former director of women’s and children’s health for the World Health Organization, international studies show that the optimal cesarean rate for a country is 10-15%. “If the rate is below 10 percent, maternal mortality goes up,” he said. “If it’s over 15 percent, maternal mortality goes up.”
In fact, a study published in the February 13, 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association journal reported that women undergoing planned c-sections are three times more likely to die.
Cesarean section is major abdominal surgery. It exposes the mother to increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, anesthesia complication, organ damage, scar tissue, secondary infertility, postpartum depression, maternal-infant bonding complications, breastfeeding difficulties and death. Is it any wonder maternal deaths are on the rise here in the US?
Cesarean section subjects infants to increased risk as well. In November, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that the risk of neonatal death was 70% higher for surgically delivered babies than for normal deliveries.
The International Cesarean Network (ICAN) advises pregnant women that they have the right to refuse any medical treatment, including cesarean section. But how can a woman with a previous c-section refuse surgery when no physician around will attend a VBAC?
Obstetricians have pushed pregnant women into a corner. Some women are weighing their options: Unnecessary surgery vs. homebirth.
Homebirth is relatively rare these days. In 1900, 95% of babies were born at home. Since 1955, that number has hovered somewhere around 1%. Yet the practice persists, not only among VBAC-seekers, but also among women who were unhappy with previous vaginal birth experiences in the hospital, and even among some first-time mothers.
Homebirth is gaining recognition within the mainstream as the result of Ricki Lake’s highly acclaimed documentary “The Business of Being Born.” The movie focuses on the profiteering that goes on in the birth industry at the expense of mothers and babies, and offers a look at how empowering and thrilling natural birth can be.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is striking back. On February 6, 2008, ACOG published a press release condemning homebirth. What the statement leaves unwritten is that every homebirth represents an economic loss of thousands of dollars for doctors and hospitals. After all, ACOG is essentially a trade union for the OBGYN industry. An anti-homebirth statement from ACOG is like an anti-tap water statement from Pierrer.
Taking a swipe at Ricki Lake, ACOG says, “Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre.”
Calling homebirth “fashionable” or “trendy” is laughable. Hospital birth is the recent historical trend. Babies have been born in homes for thousands of years. Women birthed them, and women caught them, and women nursed them.
In fact, if ACOG members would cast their myopic gaze across the Atlantic, they would find that European births are primarily attended by midwives. One third of Dutch babies are born in their own homes. Or if they peered across the Pacific, they would find that 70% of Japanese births are attended by midwifes, often in dedicated birth houses or in private homes.
The CIA states that babies are more likely to survive in 41 other countries than in the United States. Babies fare better in South Korea and Cuba than here. The safest places to be born are Singapore, Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong, followed by a long list of European countries.
Are US newborn deaths the result of over-medicated birth, c-section, or lack of health care? Take your pick. Countries where babies are less likely to die typically offer universal healthcare and home midwifery.
ACOG seems more concerned with evoking emotion than delivering facts. Consider this statement: “Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.” Translation: Homebirthers are selfish mothers who put their babies at risk.
Does ACOG at least support their contention with scientific data? Perhaps a study actually showing that hospital birth is safer? Not a chance. The studies, in fact, offer the opposite conclusion: Uncomplicated pregnancies end just as well at home.
In fact, US hospitals aren’t doing so well. Our country has the highest rate of cesarean sections, and the second worse newborn death rate in the developed world.
According to the 2007 State of the World’s Mothers report, “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn [death] rate is higher than any of those countries.”
All ACOG can say about studies is: “It should be emphasized that studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous.” In other words, the studies do not support ACOG’s contention that hospital birth is safer – which makes it completely irresponsible for them to assert that homebirthers have misplaced their priorities.
ACOG has apparently done enough market research to determine one of the factors drawing some women to homebirth: America’s soaring cesarean rate. The obstetricians have a response to this, too: “Multiple factors are responsible for the current cesarean rate, but emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes.”
Translation: “The only reason we’re cutting 1/3 of American mothers is because they’re old, they’re fat, they’re lazy and they want to be cut.” These doctors refuse to take responsibility for America’s outlandish c-section rate, even though the rate varies widely between practices and is lower in natural (drug-free) labors where women are allowed to eat, drink, and move around.
The ACOG statement even addresses VBAC, stating that women with cesarean scars are more prone to uterine rupture and thus VBAC should always take place in a hospital, never in a home. Anyone smell a rat? It’s dishonest to say VBAC should be hospital-bound and obstetrician-supervised, when obstetricians and hospitals refuse to participate.
Whoever penned the ACOG statement needs a crash-course in marketing. Obstetricians will find they are unable to shame homebirthing women back into the maternity ward. Given a choice between fat & lazy vs. selfish, we prefer to selfishly protect the precious lives of our little ones.
A few years ago I noticed a sign on the wall at a local women’s clinic. It stated “Our doctors will no longer perform VBAC.”
The sign made me laugh. VBAC stands for vaginal birth after cesarean. Since the doctors in that practice were males, it was difficult to imagine them performing a vaginal birth. Doctors do not perform vaginal births. Pregnant women do.
For women with past c-sections, the sign is not funny at all. This prohibition jettisons women’s rights back to the 1950’s when the mantra was “Once a cesarean, always a cesarean.” Women are being robbed of a fundamental childbirth choice, even though studies confirm the safety of VBAC for most women.
Healthy People 2010 urges doctors to cut the cesarean rate in half, from over 30% down to 15% by 2010. According to Dr. Marsden Wagner, former director of women’s and children’s health for the World Health Organization, international studies show that the optimal cesarean rate for a country is 10-15%. “If the rate is below 10 percent, maternal mortality goes up,” he said. “If it’s over 15 percent, maternal mortality goes up.”
In fact, a study published in the February 13, 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association journal reported that women undergoing planned c-sections are three times more likely to die.
Cesarean section is major abdominal surgery. It exposes the mother to increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, anesthesia complication, organ damage, scar tissue, secondary infertility, postpartum depression, maternal-infant bonding complications, breastfeeding difficulties and death. Is it any wonder maternal deaths are on the rise here in the US?
Cesarean section subjects infants to increased risk as well. In November, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that the risk of neonatal death was 70% higher for surgically delivered babies than for normal deliveries.
The International Cesarean Network (ICAN) advises pregnant women that they have the right to refuse any medical treatment, including cesarean section. But how can a woman with a previous c-section refuse surgery when no physician around will attend a VBAC?
Obstetricians have pushed pregnant women into a corner. Some women are weighing their options: Unnecessary surgery vs. homebirth.
Homebirth is relatively rare these days. In 1900, 95% of babies were born at home. Since 1955, that number has hovered somewhere around 1%. Yet the practice persists, not only among VBAC-seekers, but also among women who were unhappy with previous vaginal birth experiences in the hospital, and even among some first-time mothers.
Homebirth is gaining recognition within the mainstream as the result of Ricki Lake’s highly acclaimed documentary “The Business of Being Born.” The movie focuses on the profiteering that goes on in the birth industry at the expense of mothers and babies, and offers a look at how empowering and thrilling natural birth can be.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is striking back. On February 6, 2008, ACOG published a press release condemning homebirth. What the statement leaves unwritten is that every homebirth represents an economic loss of thousands of dollars for doctors and hospitals. After all, ACOG is essentially a trade union for the OBGYN industry. An anti-homebirth statement from ACOG is like an anti-tap water statement from Pierrer.
Taking a swipe at Ricki Lake, ACOG says, “Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre.”
Calling homebirth “fashionable” or “trendy” is laughable. Hospital birth is the recent historical trend. Babies have been born in homes for thousands of years. Women birthed them, and women caught them, and women nursed them.
In fact, if ACOG members would cast their myopic gaze across the Atlantic, they would find that European births are primarily attended by midwives. One third of Dutch babies are born in their own homes. Or if they peered across the Pacific, they would find that 70% of Japanese births are attended by midwifes, often in dedicated birth houses or in private homes.
The CIA states that babies are more likely to survive in 41 other countries than in the United States. Babies fare better in South Korea and Cuba than here. The safest places to be born are Singapore, Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong, followed by a long list of European countries.
Are US newborn deaths the result of over-medicated birth, c-section, or lack of health care? Take your pick. Countries where babies are less likely to die typically offer universal healthcare and home midwifery.
ACOG seems more concerned with evoking emotion than delivering facts. Consider this statement: “Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.” Translation: Homebirthers are selfish mothers who put their babies at risk.
Does ACOG at least support their contention with scientific data? Perhaps a study actually showing that hospital birth is safer? Not a chance. The studies, in fact, offer the opposite conclusion: Uncomplicated pregnancies end just as well at home.
In fact, US hospitals aren’t doing so well. Our country has the highest rate of cesarean sections, and the second worse newborn death rate in the developed world.
According to the 2007 State of the World’s Mothers report, “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn [death] rate is higher than any of those countries.”
All ACOG can say about studies is: “It should be emphasized that studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous.” In other words, the studies do not support ACOG’s contention that hospital birth is safer – which makes it completely irresponsible for them to assert that homebirthers have misplaced their priorities.
ACOG has apparently done enough market research to determine one of the factors drawing some women to homebirth: America’s soaring cesarean rate. The obstetricians have a response to this, too: “Multiple factors are responsible for the current cesarean rate, but emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes.”
Translation: “The only reason we’re cutting 1/3 of American mothers is because they’re old, they’re fat, they’re lazy and they want to be cut.” These doctors refuse to take responsibility for America’s outlandish c-section rate, even though the rate varies widely between practices and is lower in natural (drug-free) labors where women are allowed to eat, drink, and move around.
The ACOG statement even addresses VBAC, stating that women with cesarean scars are more prone to uterine rupture and thus VBAC should always take place in a hospital, never in a home. Anyone smell a rat? It’s dishonest to say VBAC should be hospital-bound and obstetrician-supervised, when obstetricians and hospitals refuse to participate.
Whoever penned the ACOG statement needs a crash-course in marketing. Obstetricians will find they are unable to shame homebirthing women back into the maternity ward. Given a choice between fat & lazy vs. selfish, we prefer to selfishly protect the precious lives of our little ones.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Homeschooling grows up
Self-educated families enjoy more options than ever before
If the term “homeschool” conjures images of identically-dressed elementary students filling out workbooks around the kitchen table and later winning the state spelling bee, your ideas about the practice are outdated. That’s not to say there are no kitchen tables or spelling bees involved, but there are as many ways to homeschool as there are families who fill out the Declaration of Intent each fall.
In some families, homeschool literally means school at home. You’ll find the walls lined with shelved textbooks and dry-erase boards. Carefully designed curriculums and meticulous schedules guide the students from one grade to the next, following a scope-and-sequence much like that found in public schools. A transcript is steadily assembled which looks very much like a public school transcript, with standard classes listed, a GPA calculated, and extra-curricular activities noted to the side.
In other homes, learning is far more organic. The textbooks are still around, but are currently being used for reference guides, booster seats, or anatomical models for a budding artist. Students may be found lying on the floor playing with a scientific calculator, hunched over a laptop writing a novel, or out in the driveway on rollerblades. More likely, the students won’t be home at all. The parents have become facilitators, relinquishing their teaching roles to spend their time obtaining requested materials or driving their students around town. These kids direct their own education without regard for whether it can be articulated in the common language of transcripts and GPA’s.
While some homeschool families are learning outside the box, others are finding innovative ways to recreate the box. The array of classes, co-ops and alternative learning groups continues to grow. Students can take classes ranging from core subjects like Algebra to extra-curriculars like fencing or writing fantasy literature. They can dress up for the homeschool prom and even participate in a graduation exercise.
Many of the efforts are student initiatives. Consider the Homeschool Shakespeare Troupe, for example. Originally launched by parents, the eight-month-long endeavor is now led mostly by homeschool graduates. They conduct auditions in February so the actors will have months to learn their lines. During the summer, organizers host a week-long Shakespeare camp where students learn stage terms and participate in drama workshops. The actors sew their own costumes and speak to each other in Elizabethan English, creating their own Shakespearean culture. The week culminates with dress rehearsal and then a very professional performance in a packed theatre. The troupe is growing so rapidly, organizers have decided to schedule two shows this year.
In every sizable town, classes and tutoring are offered by homeschool parents who are especially proficient in a specific area such as foreign language. Sometimes the tutoring becomes a lucrative business or even a small school with multiple teachers offering weekly classes to area students.
Other times it happens the other way around: The parents join together to form a cooperative and bring in a teacher. One of the most successful area co-ops is right here in Catoosa County.
On Friday mornings, students from all over the tri-state area converge on Poplar Springs Baptist Church in Ringgold. The parking lot is filled with mini-vans. Teenagers mill around the yard with backpacks slung over their shoulders, greeting each other and talking to the younger children who stream past. Some of the students carry musical instruments. Another has a basketball tucked under his arm.
The range of electives offered by the co-op continues to grow, including foreign language and upper math classes at the request of parents, and a journalism class at the request of students. The kids at the co-op form their own coalitions, organizing pickup basketball games and Friday night bowling plans.
One day a girl brought her fiddle to the co-op. The next week, a viola and a harp appeared on campus. Soon the students had formed their own Celtic ensemble called The Revelations.
Today’s homeschooling families are less rigid than in the past. Some make occasional use of public and private schools, as well as participating in the aforementioned co-ops and classes. Many families have some children in school and others learning at home.
As the homeschool population has grown, expanded, and become more mainstream, colleges have become more accepting of students educated at home. Some colleges actively recruit them. Covenant College, for example, boasts that 17% of new admissions are homeschooled students.
Homeschoolers are not so different from other kids. They grow through the same ages and stages, finding their identity and ferreting out their interests like anyone else. Some of them are brilliant, and others struggle with basic math.
Still, these students are growing up in a different paradigm. Their world is structured to meet their needs and help them grow. Public and private schools attempt much the same thing, but with the necessary assumption that most kids need the same things at the same times. The homeschool world is far more individualized.
Homeschooling is not new. Throughout history, families have educated their own children for numerous reasons. Pioneers taught their own children when schools were not available. Author Louisa May Alcott recounts in the autobiographal “Little Women” how her mother pulled her little sister out of school in response to a teacher’s cruelty. Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Woolf and other well-known geniuses received their educations at home. Figure-skaters, child actors and other prodigies have often been tutored privately.
Ansel Adams, arguably the greatest photographer of the twentieth century, was educated at home. In his autobiography, Adams wrote, “I often wonder at the strength and courage my father had in taking me out of the traditional school situation and providing me with these extraordinary learning experiences. I am certain he established the positive direction of my life that otherwise, given my native hyperactivity, could have been confused and catastrophic. I trace who I am and the direction of my development to those years of growing up in our house on the dunes, propelled especially by an internal spark tenderly kept alive and glowing by my father.”
Nurturing the internal spark inside each student is the true goal of home education. It is a goal shared by quality educators everywhere, whether they teach students in a two-story public school house, around a kitchen table, or in the church gymnasium.
If the term “homeschool” conjures images of identically-dressed elementary students filling out workbooks around the kitchen table and later winning the state spelling bee, your ideas about the practice are outdated. That’s not to say there are no kitchen tables or spelling bees involved, but there are as many ways to homeschool as there are families who fill out the Declaration of Intent each fall.
In some families, homeschool literally means school at home. You’ll find the walls lined with shelved textbooks and dry-erase boards. Carefully designed curriculums and meticulous schedules guide the students from one grade to the next, following a scope-and-sequence much like that found in public schools. A transcript is steadily assembled which looks very much like a public school transcript, with standard classes listed, a GPA calculated, and extra-curricular activities noted to the side.
In other homes, learning is far more organic. The textbooks are still around, but are currently being used for reference guides, booster seats, or anatomical models for a budding artist. Students may be found lying on the floor playing with a scientific calculator, hunched over a laptop writing a novel, or out in the driveway on rollerblades. More likely, the students won’t be home at all. The parents have become facilitators, relinquishing their teaching roles to spend their time obtaining requested materials or driving their students around town. These kids direct their own education without regard for whether it can be articulated in the common language of transcripts and GPA’s.
While some homeschool families are learning outside the box, others are finding innovative ways to recreate the box. The array of classes, co-ops and alternative learning groups continues to grow. Students can take classes ranging from core subjects like Algebra to extra-curriculars like fencing or writing fantasy literature. They can dress up for the homeschool prom and even participate in a graduation exercise.
Many of the efforts are student initiatives. Consider the Homeschool Shakespeare Troupe, for example. Originally launched by parents, the eight-month-long endeavor is now led mostly by homeschool graduates. They conduct auditions in February so the actors will have months to learn their lines. During the summer, organizers host a week-long Shakespeare camp where students learn stage terms and participate in drama workshops. The actors sew their own costumes and speak to each other in Elizabethan English, creating their own Shakespearean culture. The week culminates with dress rehearsal and then a very professional performance in a packed theatre. The troupe is growing so rapidly, organizers have decided to schedule two shows this year.
In every sizable town, classes and tutoring are offered by homeschool parents who are especially proficient in a specific area such as foreign language. Sometimes the tutoring becomes a lucrative business or even a small school with multiple teachers offering weekly classes to area students.
Other times it happens the other way around: The parents join together to form a cooperative and bring in a teacher. One of the most successful area co-ops is right here in Catoosa County.
On Friday mornings, students from all over the tri-state area converge on Poplar Springs Baptist Church in Ringgold. The parking lot is filled with mini-vans. Teenagers mill around the yard with backpacks slung over their shoulders, greeting each other and talking to the younger children who stream past. Some of the students carry musical instruments. Another has a basketball tucked under his arm.
The range of electives offered by the co-op continues to grow, including foreign language and upper math classes at the request of parents, and a journalism class at the request of students. The kids at the co-op form their own coalitions, organizing pickup basketball games and Friday night bowling plans.
One day a girl brought her fiddle to the co-op. The next week, a viola and a harp appeared on campus. Soon the students had formed their own Celtic ensemble called The Revelations.
Today’s homeschooling families are less rigid than in the past. Some make occasional use of public and private schools, as well as participating in the aforementioned co-ops and classes. Many families have some children in school and others learning at home.
As the homeschool population has grown, expanded, and become more mainstream, colleges have become more accepting of students educated at home. Some colleges actively recruit them. Covenant College, for example, boasts that 17% of new admissions are homeschooled students.
Homeschoolers are not so different from other kids. They grow through the same ages and stages, finding their identity and ferreting out their interests like anyone else. Some of them are brilliant, and others struggle with basic math.
Still, these students are growing up in a different paradigm. Their world is structured to meet their needs and help them grow. Public and private schools attempt much the same thing, but with the necessary assumption that most kids need the same things at the same times. The homeschool world is far more individualized.
Homeschooling is not new. Throughout history, families have educated their own children for numerous reasons. Pioneers taught their own children when schools were not available. Author Louisa May Alcott recounts in the autobiographal “Little Women” how her mother pulled her little sister out of school in response to a teacher’s cruelty. Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Woolf and other well-known geniuses received their educations at home. Figure-skaters, child actors and other prodigies have often been tutored privately.
Ansel Adams, arguably the greatest photographer of the twentieth century, was educated at home. In his autobiography, Adams wrote, “I often wonder at the strength and courage my father had in taking me out of the traditional school situation and providing me with these extraordinary learning experiences. I am certain he established the positive direction of my life that otherwise, given my native hyperactivity, could have been confused and catastrophic. I trace who I am and the direction of my development to those years of growing up in our house on the dunes, propelled especially by an internal spark tenderly kept alive and glowing by my father.”
Nurturing the internal spark inside each student is the true goal of home education. It is a goal shared by quality educators everywhere, whether they teach students in a two-story public school house, around a kitchen table, or in the church gymnasium.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The Golden Compass: Pointing kids to atheism?
A really dangerous series of books has become popular. The first book is so innocuous that many people give it to their children. The tale begins with a couple of innocent kids exploring the simple goodness of the world around them. Soon they find out that humans are not alone in the universe, and that there are other realms we cannot see. They discover that their world is full of warring factions, evil spirits, armies of good and bad angels, conniving witches, greedy kings and corrupt religious establishments. The series reaches a furious climax with the characters committing the most heinous act you can imagine: They kill God.
Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.
Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.
League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”
Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.
But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”
What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”
The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.
For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.
Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.
Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.
Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.
Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.
There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.
Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.
These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.
Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”
Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.
The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.
The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.
The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.
Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.
Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.
League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”
Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.
But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”
What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”
The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.
For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.
Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.
Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.
Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.
Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.
There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.
Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.
These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.
Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”
Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.
The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.
The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.
The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Barbie poisoning
I remember the year I eased the Barbie ban. It started with a lazy holiday shrug, and ended with a dozen naked plastic bodies strewn about the house.
I never bought a Barbie myself. Yet, a few years and a few children later, the Barbie population in our house surged beyond a hundred. Not that anyone has performed an actual census. You could take a sample count of a square-foot area of carpet and extrapolate from there. At one point I gathered them into three large plastic tubs and “lost” them in the basement. More Barbies quickly appeared to take their place.
I’ve overcome the impulse to rampage through the house forcing tiny shirts over those matted blond pony tails. In fact, I rarely notice the dolls anymore. I nudge wafer-thin naked bodies aside as I wade through the little girls’ bedroom in search of the last diaper in the house. I nonchalantly toss Barbies out of the shoe bin as I search for the other Tinkerbell tennis shoe.
The problems that bother me today are not the same ones that bothered me years ago. For example, I’ve grown accustomed to Barbie’s unattainable figure. At one time critics claimed the doll would be 5’-9” tall and 110 pounds if she were a real live woman.
In recent years, Mattel remodeled Barbie’s figure to look more like that of a teen. It’s not that they were concerned about the rates of anorexia on catwalks or in high schools, or the record number of adult women seeking breast augmentation. Rather, it was a response to the whims of fashion.
“In order for the hip-huggers to look right, Barbie needs to be more like a teen’s body,” Mattel spokesperson Lisa McKendall told Mother Jones magazine before the 1997 change. “The fashions teens wear now don’t fit properly on our current sculpting.”
That’s the nice thing about plastic bodies, I suppose. They can be re-sculpted to fit the clothes. Thus, Barbie’s breasts were pared down, her waist thickened a tad, and her hips made even narrower.
Barbie has become more diverse as well as (slightly) more realistic. The platinum blond hair has been varied with auburn, brown, black, and shades of gold. Various skin tones and even different facial features now adorn the dolls.
Before her recent conversion to a teen, Barbie ventured into careers that would make any feminist proud. She enjoyed stints as an astronaut, a doctor, a paleontologist, and a presidential candidate.
So what’s my beef with Barbie? I don’t think she’s very American. When 675,000 Barbie accessories were recalled due to lead paint applied in China, I picked up one those naked dolls and looked at the stamp on Barbie’s backside: Made in China.
Mattel, the maker of Barbie and owner of Fisher-Price, is the largest toy company in America. Lately Mattel has been in the news not because of a hot must-have Christmas toy, but because of tainted toys made in China.
So far, Mattel has paid $975,000 this year alone for failing to report safety hazards and recalled over ten million toys. The safety hazard, typically consist of lead paint or dangerous magnets.
One of the recalled toys is Barbie’s dog Tanner. Tanner eats and poops plastic-coated metal dog biscuits. Barbie picks them up with her magnetic pooper-scooper and deposits them into the trash can -- which is also the dog biscuit dispenser!
As if recycled poop biscuits were not enough reason to recall Tanner, the tiny magnets are a major safety hazard to young children who swallow them. When two or more magnets become lodged in different sections of the intestines, they may stick together to the point of perforating of the intestines. The recalled toys, including Barbie’s biscuit-eating dog, have frequently been of Chinese manufacture.
Barbie is not alone. Approximately 80% of the world’s toys are manufactured in China. One reason Chinese goods dominate the world market is that the Chinese government artificially devalues its currency to make its products the cheapest in the world. As China takes over whole industries, local manufacturers either outsource to China or go out of business, making those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods.
Just imagine the cycle. Every Christmas, American parents fill their children’s stockings with cheap plastic junk made in China. Meanwhile, many of these same parents are losing their jobs because they cannot compete with the cheap labor of China.
Outsourcing causes inflation-adjusted wages to fall here in America, further ensuring that Americans can only afford to put cheap plastic toys under the tree. Factor in the lead poisoning of our children -- which can lead to lower IQs, physical and mental disabilities and decreased career success long-term -- and you have the makings of a very ugly downward spiral.
What’s the antidote to Barbie poisoning? It starts with buying American-made toys. If “buy American” sounds passé, it is not just because Chinese toy makers have lulled us into a lead-paint stupor. The fact is that American-made goods are more expensive. A quick search online reveals that natural toys made with wood and non-toxic paint cost several times what we expect to pay for cheap Chinese junk.
It is time to remember the old adage, “You get what you pay for.” Opt for fewer gifts of higher quality. In the long run, quality gifts have more character and last longer.
The U.S. government has a responsibility to test every child in America for lead poisoning. There are now so many tainted toys in so many millions of homes, that recalls cannot possibly be effective in getting the lead out of America’s nurseries.
Testing is urgent because lead poisoning is cumulative. The longer the duration of the exposure, the greater the brain damage will be. There are medications to treat lead poisoning, but the most important aspect of treatment is removing the lead source.
Health departments, schools and daycares should provide the venue for free screening to determine which children need treatment and which toy boxes need to be purged. Mattel and other violators should pay for the cost of the testing and treatment.
Finally, the importers must be held accountable. We cannot regulate Chinese companies, but we can regulate Mattel. Importers should be required to prove their goods meet the same standards as American-made goods.
Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does not have access to Chinese manufacturers, accountability must happen within our borders. Importers should be required to submit to independent testing on a regular basis. The CPSC, which has been rendered somewhat toothless by Republican administrations, should have authority (and funding) to drop in at any store or distribution point, and test at random. The CPSC should impose penalties that serve not only to punish and deter, but also to clean up and compensate for violations.
A side benefit of import compliance is that it will somewhat neutralize the cost differential between imports and domestic goods. Apparently lead paint, antifreeze, and other toxic ingredients are cheap and plentiful in China. Currently American manufacturers must spend more than Chinese manufacturers to comply with safety regulations. Holding importers to the same standards will level the playing field.
When China is no longer so much cheaper, manufacturing jobs will return to America. Perhaps even Barbie will come home.
I never bought a Barbie myself. Yet, a few years and a few children later, the Barbie population in our house surged beyond a hundred. Not that anyone has performed an actual census. You could take a sample count of a square-foot area of carpet and extrapolate from there. At one point I gathered them into three large plastic tubs and “lost” them in the basement. More Barbies quickly appeared to take their place.
I’ve overcome the impulse to rampage through the house forcing tiny shirts over those matted blond pony tails. In fact, I rarely notice the dolls anymore. I nudge wafer-thin naked bodies aside as I wade through the little girls’ bedroom in search of the last diaper in the house. I nonchalantly toss Barbies out of the shoe bin as I search for the other Tinkerbell tennis shoe.
The problems that bother me today are not the same ones that bothered me years ago. For example, I’ve grown accustomed to Barbie’s unattainable figure. At one time critics claimed the doll would be 5’-9” tall and 110 pounds if she were a real live woman.
In recent years, Mattel remodeled Barbie’s figure to look more like that of a teen. It’s not that they were concerned about the rates of anorexia on catwalks or in high schools, or the record number of adult women seeking breast augmentation. Rather, it was a response to the whims of fashion.
“In order for the hip-huggers to look right, Barbie needs to be more like a teen’s body,” Mattel spokesperson Lisa McKendall told Mother Jones magazine before the 1997 change. “The fashions teens wear now don’t fit properly on our current sculpting.”
That’s the nice thing about plastic bodies, I suppose. They can be re-sculpted to fit the clothes. Thus, Barbie’s breasts were pared down, her waist thickened a tad, and her hips made even narrower.
Barbie has become more diverse as well as (slightly) more realistic. The platinum blond hair has been varied with auburn, brown, black, and shades of gold. Various skin tones and even different facial features now adorn the dolls.
Before her recent conversion to a teen, Barbie ventured into careers that would make any feminist proud. She enjoyed stints as an astronaut, a doctor, a paleontologist, and a presidential candidate.
So what’s my beef with Barbie? I don’t think she’s very American. When 675,000 Barbie accessories were recalled due to lead paint applied in China, I picked up one those naked dolls and looked at the stamp on Barbie’s backside: Made in China.
Mattel, the maker of Barbie and owner of Fisher-Price, is the largest toy company in America. Lately Mattel has been in the news not because of a hot must-have Christmas toy, but because of tainted toys made in China.
So far, Mattel has paid $975,000 this year alone for failing to report safety hazards and recalled over ten million toys. The safety hazard, typically consist of lead paint or dangerous magnets.
One of the recalled toys is Barbie’s dog Tanner. Tanner eats and poops plastic-coated metal dog biscuits. Barbie picks them up with her magnetic pooper-scooper and deposits them into the trash can -- which is also the dog biscuit dispenser!
As if recycled poop biscuits were not enough reason to recall Tanner, the tiny magnets are a major safety hazard to young children who swallow them. When two or more magnets become lodged in different sections of the intestines, they may stick together to the point of perforating of the intestines. The recalled toys, including Barbie’s biscuit-eating dog, have frequently been of Chinese manufacture.
Barbie is not alone. Approximately 80% of the world’s toys are manufactured in China. One reason Chinese goods dominate the world market is that the Chinese government artificially devalues its currency to make its products the cheapest in the world. As China takes over whole industries, local manufacturers either outsource to China or go out of business, making those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods.
Just imagine the cycle. Every Christmas, American parents fill their children’s stockings with cheap plastic junk made in China. Meanwhile, many of these same parents are losing their jobs because they cannot compete with the cheap labor of China.
Outsourcing causes inflation-adjusted wages to fall here in America, further ensuring that Americans can only afford to put cheap plastic toys under the tree. Factor in the lead poisoning of our children -- which can lead to lower IQs, physical and mental disabilities and decreased career success long-term -- and you have the makings of a very ugly downward spiral.
What’s the antidote to Barbie poisoning? It starts with buying American-made toys. If “buy American” sounds passé, it is not just because Chinese toy makers have lulled us into a lead-paint stupor. The fact is that American-made goods are more expensive. A quick search online reveals that natural toys made with wood and non-toxic paint cost several times what we expect to pay for cheap Chinese junk.
It is time to remember the old adage, “You get what you pay for.” Opt for fewer gifts of higher quality. In the long run, quality gifts have more character and last longer.
The U.S. government has a responsibility to test every child in America for lead poisoning. There are now so many tainted toys in so many millions of homes, that recalls cannot possibly be effective in getting the lead out of America’s nurseries.
Testing is urgent because lead poisoning is cumulative. The longer the duration of the exposure, the greater the brain damage will be. There are medications to treat lead poisoning, but the most important aspect of treatment is removing the lead source.
Health departments, schools and daycares should provide the venue for free screening to determine which children need treatment and which toy boxes need to be purged. Mattel and other violators should pay for the cost of the testing and treatment.
Finally, the importers must be held accountable. We cannot regulate Chinese companies, but we can regulate Mattel. Importers should be required to prove their goods meet the same standards as American-made goods.
Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does not have access to Chinese manufacturers, accountability must happen within our borders. Importers should be required to submit to independent testing on a regular basis. The CPSC, which has been rendered somewhat toothless by Republican administrations, should have authority (and funding) to drop in at any store or distribution point, and test at random. The CPSC should impose penalties that serve not only to punish and deter, but also to clean up and compensate for violations.
A side benefit of import compliance is that it will somewhat neutralize the cost differential between imports and domestic goods. Apparently lead paint, antifreeze, and other toxic ingredients are cheap and plentiful in China. Currently American manufacturers must spend more than Chinese manufacturers to comply with safety regulations. Holding importers to the same standards will level the playing field.
When China is no longer so much cheaper, manufacturing jobs will return to America. Perhaps even Barbie will come home.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Govenor's Cup inhibits SAT participation
The Governor’s Cup is empty. In 2003, newly elected Governor Sonny Perdue instituted the “Governor’s Cup Challenge” to reward schools for bringing up the average senior SAT score. He was trying to fulfill a campaign promise to bring Georgia’s average SAT up from “dead last.”
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush wants money for Iraq occupation, not America’s children
Last Wednesday, President Bush demanded another $189 billion to extend his occupation of Iraq for another year – even as he stripped low-income children of their healthcare. The cost of funding an expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, pronounced s-chip) is only $12 billion per year, less than a tenth the money he wants for Iraq.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Are we there yet?
All the way from north Georgia to Boston, my four-year-old Christianna punctuated the hours with, “Are we there yet?”
“No, baby,” we’d answer, “we’re not there yet.” Then we’d pull out the map to offer the children another geography lesson. As we sailed up I-81, I began to consider the philosophical implications of my little girl’s question, “Are we there yet?”
It has never occurred to Christianna that she lives in a world where being female will often count against her. She hasn’t yet learned about women like Susan B. Anthony who had to fight the male establishment for decades so that someday women would be able to vote. She does not know that voting is still the only right constitutionally guaranteed to women today.
Christianna sees Mommy excel in the business world and bring home a good paycheck. She doesn’t know that in America, the average woman earns only 70 cents on the dollar compared to men with the same qualifications. She does not know the top three questions women are asked in job interviews: Are you married? Do you have children? Who’s going to take care of your children while you work? She doesn’t know that answering these questions “wrong” means a lower paycheck, or none at all.
When Mommy ran for office, it did not strike Christianna as unusual. She has not yet noticed that the government is owned by men, with less than 20% representation by women. She does not understand what people mean when they dismiss Hillary Clinton with “America is not ready for a woman.” (I’m not sure I understand the meaning of that comment myself.)
Christianna sees her home-educated sisters play soccer and hockey along with the boys. She doesn’t know that around the country, schools give much greater emphasis and funding to boys’ sports than girls’. She doesn’t have a clue what Title IX is, or just how many loopholes allow schools and communities to keep funneling most of the dollars and scholarship opportunities to the boys. She hasn’t heard that Georgia public schools now have the legal option to simply close their doors to female students – making Title IX a moot point.
Christianna is growing up in a home where Mommy and Daddy treat each other with respect and make decisions jointly. She hasn’t yet learned that many women in America face sexism in their own homes. She doesn’t know that women are more likely to be physically attacked or murdered by husbands than by strangers. She doesn’t know that women who report domestic violence often receive no help at all.
At church, Christianna receives most of her spiritual instruction from female teachers. She doesn’t know that radio preachers and best-selling authors claim women dishonor God when they teach the Bible. She hasn’t heard of “complementarians” like Wayne Grudum and John MacArthur who say that men and women are not equal before God. She hasn’t heard them dismiss her favorite Bible heroines Deborah and Miriam as aberrations used to shame men.
Christianna isn’t aware that many church denominations are shoving women backward to the days before the light of Christian feminism. She hasn’t heard of Baptist chaplains stripped of their endorsement just for being female. She doesn’t know about the missionaries who lost their funding because they refused to sign a statement of belief that men are above their wives.
Christianna lives in a safe haven where women are respected, honored and given opportunity to succeed. Soon enough she will discover the hazards of being female. She’ll find out that she has to work longer and harder to succeed – and that people of both sexes will despise her when she does.
“Are we there yet?”
“No, baby, we’re not there yet . . .”
“No, baby,” we’d answer, “we’re not there yet.” Then we’d pull out the map to offer the children another geography lesson. As we sailed up I-81, I began to consider the philosophical implications of my little girl’s question, “Are we there yet?”
It has never occurred to Christianna that she lives in a world where being female will often count against her. She hasn’t yet learned about women like Susan B. Anthony who had to fight the male establishment for decades so that someday women would be able to vote. She does not know that voting is still the only right constitutionally guaranteed to women today.
Christianna sees Mommy excel in the business world and bring home a good paycheck. She doesn’t know that in America, the average woman earns only 70 cents on the dollar compared to men with the same qualifications. She does not know the top three questions women are asked in job interviews: Are you married? Do you have children? Who’s going to take care of your children while you work? She doesn’t know that answering these questions “wrong” means a lower paycheck, or none at all.
When Mommy ran for office, it did not strike Christianna as unusual. She has not yet noticed that the government is owned by men, with less than 20% representation by women. She does not understand what people mean when they dismiss Hillary Clinton with “America is not ready for a woman.” (I’m not sure I understand the meaning of that comment myself.)
Christianna sees her home-educated sisters play soccer and hockey along with the boys. She doesn’t know that around the country, schools give much greater emphasis and funding to boys’ sports than girls’. She doesn’t have a clue what Title IX is, or just how many loopholes allow schools and communities to keep funneling most of the dollars and scholarship opportunities to the boys. She hasn’t heard that Georgia public schools now have the legal option to simply close their doors to female students – making Title IX a moot point.
Christianna is growing up in a home where Mommy and Daddy treat each other with respect and make decisions jointly. She hasn’t yet learned that many women in America face sexism in their own homes. She doesn’t know that women are more likely to be physically attacked or murdered by husbands than by strangers. She doesn’t know that women who report domestic violence often receive no help at all.
At church, Christianna receives most of her spiritual instruction from female teachers. She doesn’t know that radio preachers and best-selling authors claim women dishonor God when they teach the Bible. She hasn’t heard of “complementarians” like Wayne Grudum and John MacArthur who say that men and women are not equal before God. She hasn’t heard them dismiss her favorite Bible heroines Deborah and Miriam as aberrations used to shame men.
Christianna isn’t aware that many church denominations are shoving women backward to the days before the light of Christian feminism. She hasn’t heard of Baptist chaplains stripped of their endorsement just for being female. She doesn’t know about the missionaries who lost their funding because they refused to sign a statement of belief that men are above their wives.
Christianna lives in a safe haven where women are respected, honored and given opportunity to succeed. Soon enough she will discover the hazards of being female. She’ll find out that she has to work longer and harder to succeed – and that people of both sexes will despise her when she does.
“Are we there yet?”
“No, baby, we’re not there yet . . .”
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A few good men
It isn’t that America lacks good men. It’s that our current culture does not know how to recognize them. Over the past week I have received several emails from Chris Benoit fans angrily defending the wrestler turned murderer. They all say the same thing – Yeah, he killed his wife and child, but Chris Benoit was a good man. They offer evidence to support their claim: “I met him once and he gave me his autograph.” “He was always smiling,” says another.
Many people do not understand the difference between polite and good. Mass murderer Jeffrey Dhamer was always described as polite, but that does not make him a good man. There is more to being a good man than knowing how to nod and smile. A good man does not take lives; a good man saves lives.
Liviu Lebrescu was such a man. He was a Romanian holocaust survivor who went on to become a highly honored professor. Normally he taught college students aeronautical engineering, but on April 16th of this year, he taught us all how a good man should react to terrorism. As the Virginia Tech killer approached Liviu Lebrescu’s classroom in Norris Hall, the professor blocked the doorway with his own body while his students climbed out the windows. He laid down his life so that others might live. Liviu Lebrescu was a good man.
Most good men will never step into the worldwide spotlight as Liviu Lebrescu did with that split-second decision. Most good men are good simply because they do what is right day after day. They change diapers, check homework, and help strangers stranded on the highway. They work to support their children, whether they live together or not. They pay their taxes and their bills. They thank the drive-through attendant. They leave good tips. They treat women with respect. A good man does these things even when no one is watching.
Chris Benoit enjoyed the spotlight. In the ring or in front of a cheering crowd, he wore his assumed persona. He was, after all, an actor. In the world of wrestling, he played “the good guy.” To those of us who are not avid wrestling fans, a “good guy” wrestler is a bit of a contradiction. How can anyone who engages in the sadistic, gratuitous violence showcased by modern wrestling be considered “good”? In the ring, he pretended to hurt people. At home, he really did hurt people. He hurt the very people he was supposed to love and protect. Finally, he killed them.
A man demonstrates his true character in private – away from TV cameras and cheering fans, or (in the case of more ordinary men) away from church friends and work colleagues. At home, a man shows who he really is. A good man is honest. A good man is gentle with women and children. He is responsible. He can be trusted.
My grandfather was such a man. Even if you knew Herchel Babb, you probably did not know about his military service before reading it in the obituary last week. He served in the Asiatic-Pacific theatre in WWII. Papaw rarely mentioned his service, and he certainly did not expect others to praise him for it or to give him special privileges or accolades. He never seemed to feel that civilians owed him something. He served not for personal glory, but because it was the right thing to do.
Papaw understood that a person can honor the troops and the veterans even when they do not agree with the President or the war. In fact, Papaw did not always agree with the Commander in Chief he served. He lamented the loss of life in Hiroshima, and speculated that the Allies would have been victorious soon enough without the devastation of the atom bombs.
My grandfather also felt uneasy about the bombing of Baghdad. He could say so without any sense of disloyalty, because he understood the difference between politics and patriotism. Today that line has been obscured. War hawks preach that anyone who opposes the war is a coward or a terrorist, and that you cannot be a good American without being a Republican. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo is branded as a traitor. We have forgotten what the founding fathers understood so well: Open dissent is only possible in a free country, and a free country is only possible where open dissent is allowed to flourish.
Papaw never preached a sermon – but perhaps his life was a sermon in itself. He loved his wife and delighted in his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He spent his youth scrimping and saving while he built a business with his brother Jack. As their sons grew up, they were welcomed into the business. Illness forced Papaw to retire before I joined the family business, but he was thrilled to see the younger generation coming in. That was always his desire. He wasn’t building a fortune for himself; he was building a legacy for future generations. Proverbs 13:22 says, “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” On June 30th, we held my grandfather’s hands as his breath came slower and slower, till his body at last lay still. The world lost a good man.
Ultimately, we look to Jesus Christ as the perfect example of a good man. Like the other good men I’ve mentioned, Jesus was strong but gentle. He could not tolerate injustice. Jesus courageously challenged the leaders of his day. He used his great power to help the young, the weak and the sick – not to force his will on others.
Jesus did not seek accolades, even though no one deserved them more. Although he was Lord of Lord and King of Kings, Jesus knelt on the dirty floor to wash his disciples’ feet. He did not miss a beat when he came to the feet of Judas, who he knew would betray him that very night. He loved and he served, knowing that in the end the task before him would cost him his very life.
Yet even Jesus, for all his goodness, shied away from being called good. “Who are you calling good?” he asked. “Only God is good.” Perhaps you know a man like this. I’ve got one at my house. All the Christian marriage books say that men want praise. Wives are instructed to compliment and openly admire them. But I found that when I put that advice into action, my good man cringed. He said that he was only human, and did not want to be put on a pedestal.
A good man is humble. He does not demand that others honor him for doing what is right. He doesn’t do it for glory. He does it because that’s just who he is.
Many people do not understand the difference between polite and good. Mass murderer Jeffrey Dhamer was always described as polite, but that does not make him a good man. There is more to being a good man than knowing how to nod and smile. A good man does not take lives; a good man saves lives.
Liviu Lebrescu was such a man. He was a Romanian holocaust survivor who went on to become a highly honored professor. Normally he taught college students aeronautical engineering, but on April 16th of this year, he taught us all how a good man should react to terrorism. As the Virginia Tech killer approached Liviu Lebrescu’s classroom in Norris Hall, the professor blocked the doorway with his own body while his students climbed out the windows. He laid down his life so that others might live. Liviu Lebrescu was a good man.
Most good men will never step into the worldwide spotlight as Liviu Lebrescu did with that split-second decision. Most good men are good simply because they do what is right day after day. They change diapers, check homework, and help strangers stranded on the highway. They work to support their children, whether they live together or not. They pay their taxes and their bills. They thank the drive-through attendant. They leave good tips. They treat women with respect. A good man does these things even when no one is watching.
Chris Benoit enjoyed the spotlight. In the ring or in front of a cheering crowd, he wore his assumed persona. He was, after all, an actor. In the world of wrestling, he played “the good guy.” To those of us who are not avid wrestling fans, a “good guy” wrestler is a bit of a contradiction. How can anyone who engages in the sadistic, gratuitous violence showcased by modern wrestling be considered “good”? In the ring, he pretended to hurt people. At home, he really did hurt people. He hurt the very people he was supposed to love and protect. Finally, he killed them.
A man demonstrates his true character in private – away from TV cameras and cheering fans, or (in the case of more ordinary men) away from church friends and work colleagues. At home, a man shows who he really is. A good man is honest. A good man is gentle with women and children. He is responsible. He can be trusted.
My grandfather was such a man. Even if you knew Herchel Babb, you probably did not know about his military service before reading it in the obituary last week. He served in the Asiatic-Pacific theatre in WWII. Papaw rarely mentioned his service, and he certainly did not expect others to praise him for it or to give him special privileges or accolades. He never seemed to feel that civilians owed him something. He served not for personal glory, but because it was the right thing to do.
Papaw understood that a person can honor the troops and the veterans even when they do not agree with the President or the war. In fact, Papaw did not always agree with the Commander in Chief he served. He lamented the loss of life in Hiroshima, and speculated that the Allies would have been victorious soon enough without the devastation of the atom bombs.
My grandfather also felt uneasy about the bombing of Baghdad. He could say so without any sense of disloyalty, because he understood the difference between politics and patriotism. Today that line has been obscured. War hawks preach that anyone who opposes the war is a coward or a terrorist, and that you cannot be a good American without being a Republican. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo is branded as a traitor. We have forgotten what the founding fathers understood so well: Open dissent is only possible in a free country, and a free country is only possible where open dissent is allowed to flourish.
Papaw never preached a sermon – but perhaps his life was a sermon in itself. He loved his wife and delighted in his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He spent his youth scrimping and saving while he built a business with his brother Jack. As their sons grew up, they were welcomed into the business. Illness forced Papaw to retire before I joined the family business, but he was thrilled to see the younger generation coming in. That was always his desire. He wasn’t building a fortune for himself; he was building a legacy for future generations. Proverbs 13:22 says, “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” On June 30th, we held my grandfather’s hands as his breath came slower and slower, till his body at last lay still. The world lost a good man.
Ultimately, we look to Jesus Christ as the perfect example of a good man. Like the other good men I’ve mentioned, Jesus was strong but gentle. He could not tolerate injustice. Jesus courageously challenged the leaders of his day. He used his great power to help the young, the weak and the sick – not to force his will on others.
Jesus did not seek accolades, even though no one deserved them more. Although he was Lord of Lord and King of Kings, Jesus knelt on the dirty floor to wash his disciples’ feet. He did not miss a beat when he came to the feet of Judas, who he knew would betray him that very night. He loved and he served, knowing that in the end the task before him would cost him his very life.
Yet even Jesus, for all his goodness, shied away from being called good. “Who are you calling good?” he asked. “Only God is good.” Perhaps you know a man like this. I’ve got one at my house. All the Christian marriage books say that men want praise. Wives are instructed to compliment and openly admire them. But I found that when I put that advice into action, my good man cringed. He said that he was only human, and did not want to be put on a pedestal.
A good man is humble. He does not demand that others honor him for doing what is right. He doesn’t do it for glory. He does it because that’s just who he is.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Milk and honey: Parenting with love
When I was a young new parent, someone handed me a copy of Michael & Debi Pearl's book To Train Up a Child. At the time, this simple volume seemed like a godsend. It reduced the complex to simplicity, and claimed that every child was easily raised simply by showing him who's boss. I liked that idea, when I was young and inexperienced and had yet to be baptized in spit-up and bubbles and children's laughter. Since that time, other authors have also risen up to proclaim that parenting is a simple game of mastery and will-breaking. But now that some of my children are about grown, and now that I have grown so much through contact with these children, I wonder how biblical some of these principles really are.
Christian-based programs like this one -- and the infamous Growing Kids God's Way -- claim to tell parents how to raise a child “biblically.” They recognize that a child's image of God is profoundly influenced by that early relationship with Mom and later Dad. But what sort of God do they have parents emulating? Typically one who is suspicious, overly stern and unforgiving.
When I study the Bible -- even the Old Testament with its bloody wars and judgment -- the overall picture I see of God as a parent is not the stern, hateful, show-'em-who's-boss master. The first few chapters of Genesis depict God as the parent who creates an earthly home that can only be vaguely "good" without offspring. God is the parent who looks upon those newly created children and states with satisfaction that because they are here, now life on earth is "very good." Exodus shows us God as the father who desires to lead us to "a land that flows with milk and honey." The prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah show us God as a mother who brings forth her children with great effort, and dandles them on her knees. Like a nursing mother, God can never forget her children. What if we parents were to emulate this God?
As my own six children mature and I watch them working out their own paths of life, it occurs to me that the lectures, the rewards and punishments, the programs, and the hours spent trying to mold them have had only a trace effect on their development. Their own unique personalities have been most important, and the effect I've had has come not through discipline or teaching so much as by example.
Our job as parents may not be what we think it is. It may be more about modeling right attitudes rather than molding right behaviors.
Imagine if we focused more on modeling than molding. We would feel free to shower our children with good things, happy times, close connections, acceptance, and as much responsibility as they were ready for. We would feel free to dispense with the scheduling, expectations and punishments recommended by the Pearls and their kind. Perhaps these authors read too many Cinderella-type fairy tales where the mistreated child grows up to snag the prince, while the well-loved children are horrible and spoiled. Those fairy tales are not reality. In fact, the child who grows up without love will typically not be happy or healthy. If a prince comes along he may not be interested in a person who has not learned to give and receive love.
Someone will inevitably say, "You have to teach children they can't have everything they want." The flaw in this thinking is the idea that you need to teach that concept at all. Life will teach them so, and quickly. Just tell such a person, "Don't worry. We don't live at Disney Land, we don't eat ice cream for dinner every night, and in spite of our best efforts, ear aches and bee stings happen. Life is already teaching her that things don't always go her way. My job is to teach her that sometimes things DO go your way, and that you have a right to hope for that and work for that."
I call this type of parenting "milk and honey." We give our children love, respect, and good things. We teach them to expect, long for, and demand good things from their world. We model giving good things to others.
Interestingly, La Leche League has really embraced this type of positive parenting. (La Leche League is a worldwide breastfeeding advocacy group, so we'll put them in the "milk" category of milk and honey!) They espouse "attachment parenting" which recommends that parents hold their babies most of the time, avoid leaving them to cry, sleep with them, nurse them as long as they want, and generally give them all the good, healthy things they desire.
La Leche League’s ideas are often criticized as overly permissive, but I've found that many of their suggestions are just a matter of basic respect. For example, they suggest telling a child it is almost time to put his away his toys and that dinner is cooking, instead of "put that up and come to dinner now." It is, in fact, something like the Golden Rule. You know, "Do unto [your children] as you want [your children] to do unto you." (Because when you are elderly and in their care, they probably will...)
What if we practiced the Golden Rule with our children? I've noticed that it's easy to have a double standard, especially in how we speak to our children. Parents often order children around, use sarcasm to get the point across, or express negativity toward children. Yet parents expect children to answer respectfully and look us in the eye. What if we simply spoke to them the way we want them to speak to us?
At our house, we make it a point to tell our children "please" and "thank you" and we often call them "ma'am" or "sir." Because we do this, we've not had to teach these concepts of courtesy, and if they slip a simple reminder will do. Many people have complimented us on how our children look adults in the eye, talk to them pleasantly, and are so polite. Reflecting on this, it's something we have "modeled," not "molded." That's an area where we've succeeded. One down, a few thousand to go . . . We just need a little more milk and honey.
Christian-based programs like this one -- and the infamous Growing Kids God's Way -- claim to tell parents how to raise a child “biblically.” They recognize that a child's image of God is profoundly influenced by that early relationship with Mom and later Dad. But what sort of God do they have parents emulating? Typically one who is suspicious, overly stern and unforgiving.
When I study the Bible -- even the Old Testament with its bloody wars and judgment -- the overall picture I see of God as a parent is not the stern, hateful, show-'em-who's-boss master. The first few chapters of Genesis depict God as the parent who creates an earthly home that can only be vaguely "good" without offspring. God is the parent who looks upon those newly created children and states with satisfaction that because they are here, now life on earth is "very good." Exodus shows us God as the father who desires to lead us to "a land that flows with milk and honey." The prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah show us God as a mother who brings forth her children with great effort, and dandles them on her knees. Like a nursing mother, God can never forget her children. What if we parents were to emulate this God?
As my own six children mature and I watch them working out their own paths of life, it occurs to me that the lectures, the rewards and punishments, the programs, and the hours spent trying to mold them have had only a trace effect on their development. Their own unique personalities have been most important, and the effect I've had has come not through discipline or teaching so much as by example.
Our job as parents may not be what we think it is. It may be more about modeling right attitudes rather than molding right behaviors.
Imagine if we focused more on modeling than molding. We would feel free to shower our children with good things, happy times, close connections, acceptance, and as much responsibility as they were ready for. We would feel free to dispense with the scheduling, expectations and punishments recommended by the Pearls and their kind. Perhaps these authors read too many Cinderella-type fairy tales where the mistreated child grows up to snag the prince, while the well-loved children are horrible and spoiled. Those fairy tales are not reality. In fact, the child who grows up without love will typically not be happy or healthy. If a prince comes along he may not be interested in a person who has not learned to give and receive love.
Someone will inevitably say, "You have to teach children they can't have everything they want." The flaw in this thinking is the idea that you need to teach that concept at all. Life will teach them so, and quickly. Just tell such a person, "Don't worry. We don't live at Disney Land, we don't eat ice cream for dinner every night, and in spite of our best efforts, ear aches and bee stings happen. Life is already teaching her that things don't always go her way. My job is to teach her that sometimes things DO go your way, and that you have a right to hope for that and work for that."
I call this type of parenting "milk and honey." We give our children love, respect, and good things. We teach them to expect, long for, and demand good things from their world. We model giving good things to others.
Interestingly, La Leche League has really embraced this type of positive parenting. (La Leche League is a worldwide breastfeeding advocacy group, so we'll put them in the "milk" category of milk and honey!) They espouse "attachment parenting" which recommends that parents hold their babies most of the time, avoid leaving them to cry, sleep with them, nurse them as long as they want, and generally give them all the good, healthy things they desire.
La Leche League’s ideas are often criticized as overly permissive, but I've found that many of their suggestions are just a matter of basic respect. For example, they suggest telling a child it is almost time to put his away his toys and that dinner is cooking, instead of "put that up and come to dinner now." It is, in fact, something like the Golden Rule. You know, "Do unto [your children] as you want [your children] to do unto you." (Because when you are elderly and in their care, they probably will...)
What if we practiced the Golden Rule with our children? I've noticed that it's easy to have a double standard, especially in how we speak to our children. Parents often order children around, use sarcasm to get the point across, or express negativity toward children. Yet parents expect children to answer respectfully and look us in the eye. What if we simply spoke to them the way we want them to speak to us?
At our house, we make it a point to tell our children "please" and "thank you" and we often call them "ma'am" or "sir." Because we do this, we've not had to teach these concepts of courtesy, and if they slip a simple reminder will do. Many people have complimented us on how our children look adults in the eye, talk to them pleasantly, and are so polite. Reflecting on this, it's something we have "modeled," not "molded." That's an area where we've succeeded. One down, a few thousand to go . . . We just need a little more milk and honey.
Parenting Tips for Dummies
You don’t own them. Children are not possessions that belong to you. Children are a blessing, but it’s more important that we bless them. They are not here to entertain or titillate adults, to make us look good, to justify our existence or to give adults a whipping post for taking out anger. They are not even here to love us; they are here to be loved.
Since you don’t own them, don’t be mean to your children if they act badly in public. The public will be more disgusted with your behavior than the child’s. The purpose of discipline is to nurture and train the child so that he or she grows into a healthy adult. It is not to vent your anger, or even to make your life easier. It isn’t about you.
Note to men: Dating a woman does not give you the right to discipline her children.
Note to frustrated parents: Children are not things you can put away when you’re tired of them — not in a closet, not in a car, not in a cage, not in a drug-induced stupor, and not in a shallow grave. They are in your care, but you don’t own them.
In fact, they own you. According to the law, every child has a right to be cared for and financially supported from the moment he or she emerges into the world until the age of 18. If you are the biological or adopted parent of a minor child, that child owns you.
You have certain responsibilities, and the rest of society will condemn or punish you for failing to meet them. Children have the right to expect that their caregivers will feed them (more than once a day, and something other than Lucky Charms), clothe them, nurture them and teach them. When you can’t take care of them, you have to find someone who can.
State law does not specify at what age a child may be left alone — but 6 isn’t it. Parked cars do not make good babysitters, although they do make good ovens. For a small child, being inside a car unsupervised is as dangerous as standing in the highway. In the summer it only takes minutes for a child to become brain-damaged in a parked car (even with the windows “cracked”).
Children in cars are also at risk for kidnapping, car-jacking, parking lot wrecks, engine fires, putting the car in gear, or injuring themselves on the power windows. Many automobile-related child deaths occur in the parent’s or grandparent’s own driveway.
Committing a crime against “your” child is not somehow better than committing a crime against a stranger. In fact, it is worse because you had a responsibility to protect that particular child from harm.
Children are people. This would seem to be self-evident. You would think that when a child emerges from the womb, both new parents would look down at that tiny face — a mirror of their own — and instantly fall in love. You would think that for them, that child would suddenly become the most important person in their life — the very sun around which the rest of their solar system rotates.
But here are some tips for those parents that do not experience such a paradigm shift: Ropes are for cattle, not children. If it is illegal to do to your dog, it’s also illegal to do to a child.
Pavement is blisteringly hot, and the men’s restroom floor is nasty, so put shoes on your child when you go out. Children should never be subjected to addictive, cancer-causing, asthma-triggering cigarette smoke — and certainly not in an enclosed space like your car. Oh, and when the diaper package says a diaper will hold “up to 34 pounds,” that indicates the size of the child, not the amount of excrement it will hold.
In our society, there is no excuse for cruelty to children. If you cannot or will not give your child the basic requirements of life (food, clothing, cleanliness, safety and a little love) then please be grown-up enough to hand that child over to someone who will.
Since you don’t own them, don’t be mean to your children if they act badly in public. The public will be more disgusted with your behavior than the child’s. The purpose of discipline is to nurture and train the child so that he or she grows into a healthy adult. It is not to vent your anger, or even to make your life easier. It isn’t about you.
Note to men: Dating a woman does not give you the right to discipline her children.
Note to frustrated parents: Children are not things you can put away when you’re tired of them — not in a closet, not in a car, not in a cage, not in a drug-induced stupor, and not in a shallow grave. They are in your care, but you don’t own them.
In fact, they own you. According to the law, every child has a right to be cared for and financially supported from the moment he or she emerges into the world until the age of 18. If you are the biological or adopted parent of a minor child, that child owns you.
You have certain responsibilities, and the rest of society will condemn or punish you for failing to meet them. Children have the right to expect that their caregivers will feed them (more than once a day, and something other than Lucky Charms), clothe them, nurture them and teach them. When you can’t take care of them, you have to find someone who can.
State law does not specify at what age a child may be left alone — but 6 isn’t it. Parked cars do not make good babysitters, although they do make good ovens. For a small child, being inside a car unsupervised is as dangerous as standing in the highway. In the summer it only takes minutes for a child to become brain-damaged in a parked car (even with the windows “cracked”).
Children in cars are also at risk for kidnapping, car-jacking, parking lot wrecks, engine fires, putting the car in gear, or injuring themselves on the power windows. Many automobile-related child deaths occur in the parent’s or grandparent’s own driveway.
Committing a crime against “your” child is not somehow better than committing a crime against a stranger. In fact, it is worse because you had a responsibility to protect that particular child from harm.
Children are people. This would seem to be self-evident. You would think that when a child emerges from the womb, both new parents would look down at that tiny face — a mirror of their own — and instantly fall in love. You would think that for them, that child would suddenly become the most important person in their life — the very sun around which the rest of their solar system rotates.
But here are some tips for those parents that do not experience such a paradigm shift: Ropes are for cattle, not children. If it is illegal to do to your dog, it’s also illegal to do to a child.
Pavement is blisteringly hot, and the men’s restroom floor is nasty, so put shoes on your child when you go out. Children should never be subjected to addictive, cancer-causing, asthma-triggering cigarette smoke — and certainly not in an enclosed space like your car. Oh, and when the diaper package says a diaper will hold “up to 34 pounds,” that indicates the size of the child, not the amount of excrement it will hold.
In our society, there is no excuse for cruelty to children. If you cannot or will not give your child the basic requirements of life (food, clothing, cleanliness, safety and a little love) then please be grown-up enough to hand that child over to someone who will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
