2

Thank you and Merry Christmas!

IMG_4610

I’m taking a digital break for the holidays, which I plan to spend sliding with S and D (I am loving winter this year!), eating cookies, and drinking wine with our friends and family. So this short post is just to say thank you, wish you well, and keep you hooked for the new year.

Writing this blog has been lots of fun so far, and I look forward to many more conversations with all of you in the new year. Thank you for reading, and thank you for your comments and insights. I love having you as my readers. I will be back in January with some more info, rants, and possibly confessions.

I wish all of you a warm, love-filled holiday season, and a 2014 with plenty of surprises and fun for you and your lil’ family.

With love,

G.

Advertisements
2

Here is what NOT to get your kids for Christmas: infant seat with iPad

IMG_1336 Her seat didn’t need an iPad

I’m not just about to lecture you on how you should approach screen time for infants and toddlers. In our home, we are pretty selective about our TV watching (we have a screen that we use occasionally and don’t subscribe to cable). Our daughter is under a “screen ban” for the first two years of her life. This includes smartphone screens and any other screens. I know, and I understand, that many parents use a screen occasionally to soothe or distract their children for a few minutes. How you handle screen time is your decision (hopefully an informed one).

But what I will do is tell you what not to buy —please, pretty please— for your kids or any of your friends’ or relatives’ kids for Christmas: this infant seat with an iPad stand. Why do I feel so strongly about this? There are several reasons:

  • Research has shown that exposure to screens can develop attention disorders later, affecting children’s behaviour and learning abilities in school. In this article in Additude, a magazine dedicated to Attention Deficit Disorder, the author says: “According to Dr. [Dimitri] Christakis [who researches this subject], the rapidly moving images on TV and in video games may rewire the brains of very young children, making it difficult for them to focus on slower tasks that require more thought.”
  • The American Association of Pediatrics recommends the following: “Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child’s brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens.”
  • John Medina, author of Brain Rules for Baby (a highly recommended read for anyone with kids ages zero to five), has a similar approach to screens for infants: “Babies need face time. (…) Babies love to gaze at human faces. Mom’s is best of all. (…) What are they looking for in your face? Emotional information. Are you happy, sad, threatened? (…) The only way to improve this accuracy [in interpreting human emotions by looking at faces] is by interacting with other people. That’s why babies need human time in the earliest years. Not computer time. Not television time. Your baby’s brain needs interaction with you, in person, on a consistent basis.”

These two reasons —the potential to develop attention deficit disorders and the harm done to infants by replacing crucial face time with screen time— are often cited as the best reasons to shield children from screens as much as possible, and I agree wholeheartedly with them. But my beef with the iPad infant seat goes even beyond that.

The Fisher Price “Apptivity Seat” suggests that watching a screen is an activity, which is, of course, not. The deceitful marketing is made worse by Fisher Price’s suggestion that babies can benefit from “early learning” apps, which is, of course, a lie: there is absolutely no evidence that infants can learn anything glowing on a screen. I wish I could remember its name, but I once watched a documentary that explained that babies cannot learn any words or facial expressions from screens. Even when watching their mothers on a screen, babies simply were oblivious to cues and words uttered by them. In contrast, the same interactions, when done face to face, resulted in the babies responding to and learning words and facial expressions.

Aside from all the brain science behind it, there is also something I find inherently wrong with pushing a product onto our babies. The shameless marketing of Apple products, which hope to colonize every classroom in the world with dubious claims of educational benefits, has reached a new low with wanting to hook up infants into their screens. We really need to wonder, are we providing sound technology experiences to our children by inundating them with tablets and other screens, or are we merely training our children as future consumers?

The topic of children’s exposure to marketing and advertising is a whole other story, and one that I have been following for a few years. Check out this organization if you’re interested in learning more. They even have a petition to recall the monstrous Apptivity Seat: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for reading my rant and have a great day!

2

Positive parenting: self-regulation

IMG_4681

Hi and sorry for the long absence! I really have no excuse, other than I’ve just been busy with life in general. Never too busy to listen to the radio, though. (I’m an incurable CBC radio junky).

I went for a short drive on Sunday, and I ended up idling my car at a parking lot because this documentary was playing on CBC: How does your engine run? It was a fascinating piece about a pilot project in schools in Surrey, British Columbia, where teachers are training kids to self-regulate their behaviour.

The gist of the story is that these teachers are dealing with behaviour issues driven by stress in a very interesting way: by identifying what is stressing each kid and offering individual solutions for them. For instance, one girl is so hyper that when her behaviour is spiraling out of control, she goes for a run to calm down. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the middle of a class. Another kid just hates his chair and can’t focus, so he gets to seat on a special cushion. It has nothing to do with discipline —it’s all about observing and understanding each kid’s needs. And it’s all about each kid identifying their own tipping point at doing something about it.

But wait, isn’t this supposed to be a post about positive parenting? Yes! I found this story to be perfectly in tune with one of the principles of positive parenting that we’ve been talking about: treating children with respect. So many times, in so many instances, I feel that we look at our children from the top down, and we reach conclusions about their behaviour that in reality have nothing to do with what is going on in their minds and bodies.

I think respect means that, even from a very early age —from Day One, I’d say— we should try to listen to what our kids are trying to tell us, instead of projecting our ideas onto them. And we should really toss away that obsolete notion that kids behave badly just to make us feel bad. Treating our kids with respect means that we understand their behaviour is not about us, but rather about something they need and are trying to communicate to us.

It seems to me that respect is at the heart of this idea of teaching self-regulation to children, because it forces us to trust their ability to understand themselves; to trust that they can identify their own limits and deal with them, even from a very early age. Simply put, respecting our children empowers them.

So yes, I think positive parenting has a lot to do with teaching self-regulation. And I think I’m on the right track, because my friend E., from The Mindful Parent, also recommended the CBC doc to me 🙂

I encourage you to check it out. Read the story and listen to the doc here.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Have a great week!