Recently, a mom with preschoolers was talking about how she plans on ramping up her career again once both her children are in elementary school in two years. "Once they're in school until 3 pm., I'll really be able to get work done," she said.
I almost laughed in her face, but I thought, Better let her enjoy the fantasy while she can.
And it is a fantasy.
Anybody who has kids in elementary school knows that between the holidays, half days, and mysterious "staff development" days--not to mention those sick days--it's literally impossible to go a month without work interruptions.
This week, my kids had three half days (due to parent teacher conferences). The following week, they'll have one day off for Good Friday and another half day off for mysterious reason. And of course, since we celebrate Passover, the kids will be taking one other day off. Then two weeks later, they have a full week off for spring vacation.
"But they had off a week at the end of February," a friend of mine said. "Did we get that much time off as kids?" It probably didn't matter since most of us had at-home moms or moms whose jobs were part-time and flexible.
Sounds like today, in fact. The difference, though, is that there are some of us--like me--who walk around in our jeans and sweat shirts but actually are have serious work commitments. These mothers and I have our secret code: "Half day," said with eye roll. "I know," said with groan.
What we do is cobble together coverage with babysitters and after care and call in favors and get the rest of our work done at night.
Whenever there are public policy discussions about how to better accommodate working parents, the talk is usually focused on providing subsidized, quality child care. But what about reorganizing the school day so it is structured around modern working life (versus the agricultural calendar of a century ago)?



Stumble It!

Goodbye Child.
The magazine, at which I've been a contributing editor, was shut down yesterday. While it still has a circulation of 850,000, ad sales have been declining, as advertising and readers are migrating to the web. Meredith, the corporate owner, says child.com will live on, but it clearly won't be publishing the kind of features and art that made the magazine what it was.
Which is too bad. Miriam Arond, the editor in chief, and the editors she assembled, were truly some of the best I've ever had an opportunity to work with.
Ironically, I had just participated in a panel discussion the night before at William Paterson University, in which we discussed the economic pressures on the magazine (as well as newspaper) industry. Case in point.
Stumble It!

Apparently, marketers have embraced a new term, alpha mom. The term was coined by a designer working on a new cable network aimed at moms who want parenting advice. The whole premise of the network was that there is a shortage of advice for moms.

Uh, really? From 20-20 to the Today show, not to mention virtually every women's magazine and the raft of parenting magazines, we are being deluged with parenting stories.

But back to this term, alpha mom. An alpha mom is supposedly hip and modern but excels at mothering. Which means she buys a whole raft of pricey, new products if they promise to make parenting easier or better. Or her child more brilliant.

Makes me sleepy just thinking about it. Where are the slacker moms when we need them? (Okay, the book that inspired the term, Confessions of a Slacker Mom, didn't live up to the title. Book was actually poorly written and not that funny or insightful, but like alpha mom, it was a great marketing slogan.)


Stumble It!

Be prepared for debating over the effects of day care on kids.

A long-term federal study of children in day care found that the more time kids spent in daycare, the more likely they were to be disruptive and aggressive in elementary school years later.

While some will argue that this is the proverbial smoking gun--proof that day care is harmful for kids--others will point out the ambiguities. First, the study finds that all of the behavior is still within normal range--these kids weren't juvenile delinquents. And even more significant, the study found genes and parenting still have a much bigger impact on how kids turn out than day care.

So what should parents take from this study? In previous interviews I've done with researchers involved in this study, they've said that temperament also seems to play a role in kids' ability to adjust and thrive in day care. This latest finding just underscores the importance of parents paying attention to how their kids are faring in day care. Do they seem happy or stressed? Is there a lot of acting out?

Of course, as a society, though, it points out to the need for us to support parents. Whenever I've interviewed experts involved in this issue, they always say the following:
-Let's the follow the lead of other industrialized nations and provide better maternity and paternity leave policies so that parents will have the option of being able to stay home with their newborn for a few months, without losing their jobs. d
-The U.S. needs to subsidize day care and preschool, just as it has for grade school, so that the quality of childcare is lifted in this country.



Stumble It!

Mother today spend more time with their kids than their counterparts did forty years ago. That was confirmed in researched, published in the Washington Post today. The chart is most interesting, showing that mothers today do dramatically less housework and fathers do more childcare than they did in the 1960s.
Of course, mothers today still feel that they don't spend enough time with their kids, and researchers suggest that may be because the ethic of mothering has changed. Whereas women in the 1960s worried that if they paid their kids too much attention, they'd "smother" them (this was the era, after all, of bottle propping!), now mothers today worry about not being involved enough with their kids. This has been called the culture of "intensive mothering."
Worth reading.
Stumble It!

There has been a flurry of articles recently about whether mothers are "opting" out of the workplace and, if so, why. This debate has been raging since 2003, when The New York Times' Lisa Belkin wrote her infamous cover story about a small group of Princeton-educated women who had left their careers to be full-time moms.
Often I find these critiques to be retreads of old arguments (either: the elitist media is focusing on a narrow group--most women aren't dropping out. Or, the media is right women are dropping out, but it's because they're forced out.) While I think both arguments have merits, it's the realities--the gray areas---that they ignore that I find tiresome.
So I am happy to report that American Prospect's March issue, "Mother Load: Why Can't American Have a Family-Friendly Workplace?" is a welcome departure, largely because of a lively debate on its site.
Linda Hirshman, in particular, makes a strong case that the "revolution" is at a depressing standstill. Yes, men do more housework than they did before, but they still do less than half than what women do. Yes, there are men who work from home and assume responsibility for the childcare, but many more women still take on that role.
Her point (which she also made in her book, Get to Work, a slim manifesto published last year): Our "system"--the antiquated, rigid ways in which work is structured--has not changed because women, and their mates, have accepted the status quo.

Stumble It!

Stumble It!

I swore this year that I was not going to fall into the goodie bag trap.
I was NOT going to stuff the goodie bags at my kids' birthday parties with all kinds of pointless junk that would soon after land up in a waste dump in New Jersey. I was NOT going to add to the crass consumerism. I was not going to get caught up in the birthday competition.
In the interest of the conserving the earth (and my bank account), I was going to buy just one well-chosen item, hopefully one with some meaning attached, and that would be it.
I had briefly considered following in a friend's footsteps--she gives "adopt-a-whale" cards from a conservation group. But I couldn't find the information for the group, and with less than a week until the birthday party, I decided I would just run to the story today with my daughter and pick something up.
Somehow I came home with bags filled with junk and junk food. Nail polish. Lip gloss that tastes like candy. Pop tarts (how did I get roped into that?) And of course, actual candy.
Why? Because standing in that superstore with my daughter, my main driving motivation was to have her have the best birthday ever.
Isn't that why most parents buy all the silly stuff we buy for our kids? Isn't that why kids' birthday parties have become Events, and goodie bags de riguer? Why we spend hundreds of dollars going to overcrowded theme parks, waiting on long lines for two minute, $20 rides that are promptly forgotten and only seem to stoke more needs/wants?
In truth, the pressure isn't all coming from the kids. After we loaded the bags in the car and buckled our seat belts, and my daughter was rummaging through the bags, admiring the booty, she said: Thanks mom! You didn't need to buy all this stuff!
Oh well, there's always June, when my youngest has her birthday.
Stumble It!

A provocative title, I know, but it seems to reflect the debate that is swirling around the increase in life-threatening food allergies in children.

I recently spent months examining how the recent rise in childhood food allergies--and all of related scientific uncertainties -- is impacting schools, communities, and families, and what I found was that food allergies have become the new battleground in parenting, dividing schools, communities, and even families. (The article is in this month's Child magazine.)

What got me interested in the story was an incident that occurred at my younger daughter's preschool shortly after it became nut free last year. The director sent home a letter, advising parents that another parent had smuggled in a disguised peanut butter sandwich with his child. (The child announced at lunch that Dad said not to tell anyone he had the peanut butter sandwich.) From that point on, the director said, teachers would be checking lunch boxes for forbidden foods.

Once I started to investigate, I learned, sadly, this incident was not uncommon. Food allergies are dividing communities, schools, and even families, as there is much misunderstanding (and even ignorance) about this relatively new diagnosis.

By the way, that misunderstanding cuts in all directions. I've found that some parents of kids with food allergies and schools are circumscribing their kids' lives more than necessary or even healthful. Children with food allergies and their parents are at high risk for depression and anxiety, sometimes at levels higher than those suffered with cancer or chronic diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis.




Stumble It!

As I hurried my anxious 10-year-old off to school this morning for her second day of hours of standardized tests, I thought of an interview I did several years ago with Reid Lyon, then a top official in charge of reading research at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
I remember how he had argued that the standardized testing required under No Child Left Behind would improve schools to improve because they'd provide objective assessments of how children are learning. What about the pressure these tests bring to kids? What about the time these tests would eat up, not only for the test taking but for the preparation for the tests? He essentially shrugged that all off. If teachers don't apply pressure, these kids wouldn't feel any different than taking any other test, he said.
Now that my oldest daughter has gone through this testing for a couple years, I'm seeing how absurd his thinking was. Even at my daughter's high achieving elementary school, they've spent probably two weeks have the kids taking practice tests. Some of the kids are even spending time after school getting "tutored" for the test. That doesn't factor into how the curriculum has been changed to make the kids better prepared for the test. And then they spend almost a full week taking the tests.
We've told our daughter to relax, the tests are really to evaluate the school overall, not individual students, but she hears otherwise from teachers. (One year, the teacher told the class: "This is the most important test you'll take all year.") This year, she had the misfortune of getting a virus. She wanted to go to school anyway to take the test because she didn't want to have to make it up later. So she's dragging herself to school, sitting through hours of this stressful testing...and to what end?
I don't think it's improving education at my kids' or their friends' schools. Could it be lifting standards at the struggling schools? I'd like to see hard research that shows that.


Stumble It!

The other day I tried to make a playdate for my kindergartener, and the mom and I realized that there was only one date--nearly two weeks off--when the two kids were free on the same day. Her child had after school activities three days a week; mine had activities twice a week.
Okay, this is not news that kids are overscheduled, at very young ages.
But now the American Academy of Pediatrics is taking sides. And it's telling parents that kids need more time for "free play." Here is a passage from the AAP's press release on its report.
A new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says free and unstructured play is healthy and - in fact - essential for helping children reach important social, emotional, and cognitive developmental milestones as well as helping them manage stress and become resilient.

The report, "The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds," is written in defense of play and in response to forces threatening free play and unscheduled time. These forces include changes in family structure, the increasingly competitive college admissions process, and federal education policies that have led to reduced recess and physical education in many schools.

Whereas play protects children's emotional development, a loss of free time in combination with a hurried lifestyle can be a source of stress, anxiety and may even contribute to depression for many children, the AAP report states.

While I agree with this report in theory--kids can do wonderful things when given the freedom to use their imaginations--I feel like it once again put the entire burden on parents, perpetuating the culture of blaming the working parents (and let's face it, that usually means the mothers).
The reason for the overscheduling isn't simply because of misguided, overly striving parents. We live in a world with few social supports. If you don't put your kids in some scheduled activities, what will they do? They'll probably get into lots of trouble. Families tend to be smaller today and both parents are working, so likely this kid will be at home alone and looking to a parent for play. It isn't like thirty years ago when families had three or four kids and whole neighborhoods of kids hung out in the backyards and played together. This report just fuels this notion that it's all the parents fault. What about society's responsibility here? What about setting up better after school programs and creating more flexible workplaces? Y
Stumble It!

Yet, another study came out documenting the huge increase in the use of drugs to treat children for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Some facts from this study by the University of California at Berkeley:
--Roughly one in 25 children and adolescents in the US are taking drugs for ADHD.
--The increase in being seen worldwide, but the US "led the pack." The number of countries using ADHD drugs has jumped from 31 in 1993 to 55 in 2003. The US, however, makes up for 83 percent of prescriptions or $2.4 billion in 2003.

The question is, what impact is this medication having on kids? And are pediatricians prescribing these drugs without doing the proper evaluations? We shouldn't demonize parents who make the wrenching decision to put their children on drugs, but we need to hold doctors accountable.

Stumble It!

I know there are a million cliches about how the world could be a better place if we just listened to kids--or some such. But I always took a very cynical view of that, seeing how two-year-olds will pummel each other if not properly supervised and even at five, girls can be quite mean and cliquish.
But this year, a friend formed a Youth Social Action Club (YOSAC) with a couple of other parents. The purpose was to expose kids, in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, to different social issues, really help them get educated and, hopefully, inspired to act.
My ten-year-old joined the group. And from the very first meeting, it was obvious to me that something special was going on.
The first issue that the group tackled was climate change. Thanks in large part to a creative program developed by some very committed, knowledgeable parents, these kids left knowing a lot more about the subject and determined to act. They sold fluorescent bulbs and turned the money over to an environmental group. They handed out papers telling people how to save energy.
My daughter had gone to a very alternative camp last summer, so she had already been trying to convince me that we should go "fossil fuel free" one day a week. We'd also changed all our lightbulbs to fluorescents after seeing An Inconvenient Truth.
But as a result of this group, I saw a change in my daughter. She became more sophisticated in how she talked about the issue. All the kids I spoke to in the group seemed more knowledgeable and passionate. A few of them even spoke at a public meeting of state officials.
It's just been incredible to see this activism and social consciousness awakened in them. They're not simply parroting what they've been told, either.
All of this has given me some hope, too. We read so much about how kids are materialistic, self-absorbed, etc.
But I really do think they all have this capacity to do so much good. If we give them a chance.

For those who are interested, here is a link to the site created by some kids in the group,w ith the help of parents, natch.

Stumble It!

Anyone out there sleep deprived?
According to a new poll by the National Sleep Foundation, you're not alone. NSF found that 60% of American women aren't getting a good night's sleep many nights every week. And this lack of sleep affects "virtually every aspect of their time-pressed lives, leaving them late for work, stressed out, too tired for sex and little time for friends."

Yes, the poll found that working mothers are sleep deprived (72%), but interestingly, about the same percent of at home mothers say they're suffering from insomnia at least a few nights a week too (74%).

What's causing the problem? Well, of course, mothers simply have too much to do--regardless of whether they're working outside the home. Worry also can keep us up at night. But letting your kids (or pets) sleep in your bed--which is very voguish in certain quarters these days-- also can make matters worse.

The poll found that women who shared their beds with children or pets had the worst sleep,w hile working, married women with no kids or whose kids were grown got the best sleep of virtually every other group.

The poll says that women have more sleep problems than men. Of course, it helps that many men just don't hear their babies cry at night.






Link

Stumble It!

Deadlines and life have kept me from this blog lately. But recently, my kids were off from school, and I decided to check into a hotel with them and experience New York as tourists.
Our first stop was at the Museum of Natural History, which we've visited several times before. But we hadn't visited in the last year since the museum opened its Hall of Human Origins, a look at the evolution of man. It was fascinating to both my kids. My five-year-old couldn't wrap her head around the fact that the hairy, hunched over pre-man was our ancestor. My 10-year-old found it reinforced concepts she'd been learning in school. We ended up spending four hours in the museum, as the kids insisted on not missing the dinosaurs, the minerals, the dioramas and the space exhibits.
The next morning, we visited the Sony Wonder Technology Lab. This is one of those hidden New York gems. In an annex to Sony's headquarters, there is a building that houses a four-story interactive "lab" open to the public and geared for kids. It has all kinds of hands-on exhibits that involve using cutting edge Sony technology, whether that's cutting a music video, playing video games, or directing a news station. It's also free (come when the lab opens at 10 a.m., or make a reservation.) We spent two hours there, but I had to drag my kids out.
After a quick lunch, we saw Blue Man Group downtown. This show, which opened 15 years ago at the Astor Place Theatre in New York, is now showing in a bunch of other cities. I am always struggling to find shows that will appeal to both a 5-year-old and a tween. My 10-year-old rolled her eyes at Beauty and the Beast. My younger daughter, at 4, fell asleep during the Lion King.
Blue Man Group was a perfect choice. While I wouldn't recommend it for preschoolers (some loud noises and surprises, plus the Blue men who walk through the audience, might scare them), the show has mostly non-verbal, physical comedy. So my kindergartener thought it was hilarious. Yet it had enough subversive humor that it also could appear to adults and a tween whose favorite movie is Tim Burton's dark Nightmare Before Christmas.


Stumble It!

Just came across a new study commissed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, which found that mothers of children under the age 11 suffer more employment discrimination than any other group.

"Women with young children face the greatest employment inequality: lone mothers with a child under 11 are 45% less likely to be employed than a man with a partner; mothers who have a partner are 40% less likely to be in work than men in relationships."

While many U.S. academics have sounded similar alarms here--University of California Hastings College of Law professor Joan Williams's research into the "maternal wall," in particular--none have had the imprimateur of the U.S. government. And so inaction has been the rule of the day.

Will a Pelosi-led Congress change this? Could a Hillary presidency make a difference?



Stumble It!