Conference moira::parenting_v3

    I think one of Burton White's books has very elaborate charts about
    such things, but it's really pretty meaningless.  Development isn't
    linear.  Most kids are ahead of "average" in some areas, and behind in
    others.  And a kid who seems ahead (or behind) at age one may seem the
    opposite at age three.  Also, some kids have a style of starting an
    activity (whether walking, reading or differential calculas) early, but
    mastering it slowly; while another kid will start things late, but
    master them very fast.  I think the kind of generalized metric you seem
    to want isn't possible.
    
    Besides, even if available, there probably isn't much of anything you
    could or should do with such information, anyway.  Pre-schoolers
    shouldn't be pushed to advance their intellectual skills; they push
    themselves quite adequately, anyway.  The "environment" they need to
    develop emotional, social, physical, and cognative abilities is not
    something that can or needs to be fine tuned to their particular
    developmental level.  I think any pre-school that tries to sell you on
    their special stuff for gifted kids would be demonstrating marketing
    savy, not worthwhile programs (just as I would reject any pre-school
    that offers computer literacy for three year olds, as one near me
    does!).
    
    		- Bruce

A long time ago I asked my pedi for such a guide.  She discouraged it because
she said I would be "measuring" Kati, and should not really try
to do that.  Also, she has found that if a parent notices a child doing some-
thing "early," they will usually be real proud and try to encourage MORE of
it, when they should really be encouraging the skills that are "behind" 
instead.  Does that make sense?

    .1 makes a lot of sense to me.  While it's interesting to know at what
    ages kids do certain things, to use it as a yardstick for "normal" or
    advanced development would not benefit the child, particularly in the
    early years.  And to push a child, I think, would simply not work.  But
    Penelope Leach's books have plenty of developmental charts in them, if
    you have the books or are familiar with the author.
    
    I know that if I held by the charts in the books I've read, I'd be in
    the nut factory by now.  For instance, my 10 month old has yet to start
    forming hard sounds like consonants.  According to my pediatrician, he
    should have been doing this for a couple of months yet.  What? Me
    worry?  My twins did not utter one word til at LEAST 18 months, and I
    mean literally not one word.  No ma, da, kitty, nothing.  
    
    So my philosophy is study all the charts, but put only a small
    percentage of your faith in them - put the rest in your child.
    

There is a series of books "Your Two Year Old", etc. by Louise Bates Ames, that
I really like.  I think it starts with one and goes through eight.  I've read
two, three and four and I felt like either: 1.) someone is spying on our house
or 2.) the kids are reading the books at night - that's how on target they are!

For me, understanding developmental stages makes being a parent about 100 times
easier!  

Jane

    I just recently started a Prepared Childbirth Class and was given 2
    pages of suggested readings.  They list Postpartum and Beyond and a
    subtopic and under that listed a couple of books that MAY help you.
    
    ON BECOMING A FAMILY  	T.B. Brazelton (1981)
    GROWING PARENT:  A SOURCEBOOK FOR FAMILIES 	Editors of Growing
    						Child/Parents (1983) 
    
    I too think that the other noters are right about how each child
    differs during each stage of development but I've found that you really
    DO need to know what's expected between a certain time (the books
    themselves will tell you that not every child will do this).  However,
    you really DO need to have a ballpark because that's the way to
    understand your child better, and know if there are problems if they
    are NOT developing.  
    
    In other words, use it as a guideline but know that YOUR little miracle
    will be different from all the others.  (AND WHY WOULDN'T HE OR SHE BE
    ANYWAYS RIGHT)?
    
    Rebecca
    

    Thanks for the recommendation Jane. I'll get a copy of that series of
    books. 
    
    I do believe that every child progresses at their own pace but I just
    like to be aware of the guidelines and does make parenting easier. I do
    think the child needs to be in an environment that will develop all
    their skills but I'd like to be aware of any advanced or lagging
    development skills. I think it is just my personality that I wouldn't
    just take the word of a teacher that he needs help in a certain area
    without knowing enough about it myself. One of my son's daycare
    providers yesterday told my that he didn't know his shapes. She said he
    kept saying "what's that?" when they were painting the shapes on the
    windows. I told her that that is his way of of starting the convesation
    around what was happening and allowing him to tell you what those were.
    My son will always ask "what's that?" and I always answer "let's look
    at it. What do you think it is?". If he really doesn't know, I explain
    it to him. If he knows he carries the conversation. There is a point
    where someone else looking at your child sees things differently;
    that's why I do like to read text books that do offer guidelines so I
    know when to be concerned and when not to be and I don't go in for
    "gimmicks" like computer-literate children at the 3 years old or 4 year
    old Olympic gymnasts.
    
    Again, thanks for the responses.  

    Assuming we're talking about the normal range of development and
    not real developmental handicaps, I don't agree with the comment
    about working on the things the child is less advanced in.  (I'd
    say that learning more about how people develop and grow from
    childhood to adulthood is likely to help parents avoid this kind
    of mistake, by the way.)
    
    No child is going to be good at everything.  There's nothing wrong
    with that and there's no need to try to force children to be good
    at something that doesn't interest them.
    
    I spent major portions of my school life and now my adult life
    focussing on the things I do wrong, the "needs improvement" areas. 
    I was always ahead academically but young for my age emotionally.
    Being put ahead a grade only exaggerated the problem. So it was
    always, "Bonnie is very good at her schoolwork, but she doesn't
    get along well with other children."  And then instead of giving
    me a challenging assignment to keep me interested, I'd get put in
    a group project, which I HATED.  And I started to hate myself for
    being so awful at this social-interaction stuff, and feeling
    terribly inadequate, because so much of what they wanted from me I
    just wasn't ready to do. I didn't have the developmental level to
    give them what they wanted from me -- I failed -- and I felt like
    a failure. 
    
    I wound up being even more shy and insecure because I always
    wondered how I was doing, and the secret to getting along with
    people is to forget about yourself.  But I didn't get to that
    state until my late teens, when my emotional development caught up
    with the rest of me.  
    
    The net result has been that until recently I never developed the
    things I'm good at.  I don't lead to my strengths, I try to cover
    up my weaknesses.  I still feel inadequate socially -- this
    although all the evidence indicates that I'm just fine at getting
    along with people and working in groups.  I'm not the leader, I'm
    not the one who comes up with the brilliant ideas, just a
    competent "indian" who can coordinate things because I'm
    reasonably well organized -- and there's nothing wrong with that. 
    If I prefer to work alone and to not socialize, that's just a
    preference, not a weakness or a failure.  
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie, (re .17)
    
    That's a very interesting comment because a book I was just reading
    mentioned that children should spend time on the "skills" they are not
    good at. I think they meant it in reference to you have to develop a
    well-rounded child and allowing him/her to become completely absorbed
    in only the thing they are good at will hinder all the other skills
    they need to "survive" in this world. Allowing a child to turn into a
    concert pianist at 6 years old and never allowing time for that child
    to be with friends or run and play like a 6 year old does more damage
    to their "future". They did stress adequate time for the development of
    all skills and that working on the ones that were behind the norm was
    important. I do think it is a shame when parents may have a "text book" 
    genuis on their hands and assume that the child knows how to socially
    interect as well. 
    
    The point being that the child will have a whole set of skills and
    varying levels of each. You should encourage them to continue to
    develop the ones they are good at (they need the confidence) and spend
    an appropriate and adequate time in the ones that need "imporvement"
    but not to the point of making the child feel like a failure or
    unhappy. It seems to be a difficult balance to find!!!
    
    Andrea

    re: .8
    
    Andrea, could you post the title and author of the book?  I think
    I'd be interested in reading it, if I can find it. 
    
    Based on your summary, I think I disagree with their premise that
    everyone should be "well-rounded," if by well-rounded they mean
    equally good at everything.  Yes, everyone should be moderately
    functional at everything.  Yes, your child should have an
    opportunity to develop all aspects of his or her personality. 
    Yes, if your child's really behind in an important skill, then you
    should work on it.  But in the normal range of behavior, people of
    vary widely in what they like and in what they're interested in,
    and trying to train the child into the directions the school
    system will agree is a well-rounded person only backfires in the
    long run. 
    
    I truly think that the social and behavioral skills are just like
    walking and talking and toilet training and all the other physical
    skills -- the child will do them when she's ready, and not a
    moment before.  We can guide and support and instruct and provide
    opportunities to develop those skills, but we can't force them to
    develop early (the biography of John Stuart Mill is instructional
    here) or hold them back when they want to push on without damaging
    them, sometimes in subtle ways. 
    
    For instance, Steven's a social butterfly.  He likes being around
    people, he dislikes being alone.  He's got an artistic streak, but
    even when he's working on a collage of a mountain, he doesn't want
    to work alone.  He likes having someone there to talk to while
    he's working on it.  He often gets upset about having to play
    entirely alone, without anybody else at least talking to him.  
    
    This is in contrast to Kat, who's a loner.  She likes to spend
    long hours in her room reading (voraciously), writing in her
    diary, watching TV, and otherwise occupying herself with things
    that interest her.  She has a couple of close friends she does
    things with, but most of her free time is taken up with dance, and
    the rest of the time she prefers to stay home.
    
    Should I try to push Kat into going to more parties where she'd
    have a lousy time just so her social skills are up to somebody's
    idea of par?  Would she learn more than how to feel awkward and
    self-conscious in a situation she wasn't ready to handle?  Should
    I tell her she should drop dance since it means she can't go out
    on Friday nights most of the year?  Would I accomplish anything
    except make her feel like she's abnormal? 
    
    Should I tell Steven that no, he can't go over to his friend's
    house because he needs to spend some more time with himself, it's
    good for him to feel lonely and hurt?  Should I push him away when
    he needs to cling?  Would I teach him anything but that his mother
    wasn't there when he needed her?  
    
    I haven't done any that, and you know what?  This summer, after
    years of complete disinterest in a social life and another year or
    so of complaining about how she didn't have a social life, Kat has
    been going places and doing things (a boyfriend with a job that
    gets out even later than dance rehearsals helped :)).  She's ready
    for it now, and she's having a great time.  Steven spent three
    hours up in his room yesterday afternoon making up some kind of
    elaborate play for his stuffed animals.  Then came downstairs and
    played in the study with me for the rest of the afternoon talking
    nonstop about what they'd been doing.  (Watch out, Calvin and
    Hobbes, here comes Steven and Bee...)
    
    Let them grow.  Let them be what they want to be.  
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    .9 > Based on your summary, I think I disagree with their premise that
    .9 > everyone should be "well-rounded," if by well-rounded they mean
    .9 > equally good at everything.  
    
    It doesn't sound as if we were reading the same entry, bonnie.  Andrea
    said:
    
    .8 > The point being that the child will have a whole set of skills and
    .8 > varying levels of each. You should encourage them to continue to
    .8 > develop the ones they are good at (they need the confidence) and spend
    .8 > an appropriate and adequate time in the ones that need "imporvement".
    
    I don't find any disagreement here.
    	
    		- Bruce
    

    No, Bruce, I read the same thing.  I'm saying that the appropriate
    and adequate amount of time to spend on developing the skills that
    don't happen to measure up to your standards of what a child
    should be is exactly zero, assuming that the skill still falls
    within the 'normal' range, i.e. isn't causing behavioral,
    academic, or other problems for the child. 
    
    --bonnie

    I agree with .9.  Our 7 year old 
    son has a clear internal agenda.  There was a
    time when he firmly said, "I don't play winning/losing games", and
    then one day he starting doing it.  Lots of examples.  He's so firm
    about what he's willing to do and what he's not that I've learned to
    sit back and wait for him to develop, and that seems to work.  I
    believe he'll eventually do everything that (I believe) matters,
    but it has to be one skill at a time for him.  Daycare centers and
    the school at first tried to make our son be "normal", with traumatic
    results for him and them.  Now school is firmly behind letting him
    follow his interests, and only spend as much time as he can stand on
    the other stuff.  (Yeah wonderful Acton School administration!)
    So he's quite "unbalanced" in skills but he's happy.
    
    I take some issue with statements like "it's wrong to have a
    child concentrate on something (like becoming a wonderful musician)
    at the expense of "normal" childhood activities".  The previous
    replyer may not have meant it that way, but my daughter is a wonderful
    violinist, and I have several times had people make remarks like, "Yes,
    but does she have a "normal" childhood?"  Very rude and judgemental.
    There is only finite time, and you aren't going to expose your child
    to everything.  What does "normal" mean?  Do they mean 5 hours of
    TV a day?  Do they mean watching MTV?  Do they mean skiing?
    
    The only example in the previous reply of "normal" was "Playing with
    neighborhood kids".  A lot of people I know didn't do that very much
    at all as youngsters (actually my daughter is very social and does
    spend a lot of time playing with friends) and yet grow up to have
    families, close friends, and jobs they enjoy.
    So I don't believe a child has to spend time with friends in order
    for the parents to be credited with giving the child a "normal
    childhood".  (Playing with friends isn't on my son's current agenda --
    if there is a friend over, they'll just do "parallel play" and pretty
    much ignore each other.  He'd rather not have anyone other than his
    sister or parents around.)
    
    So anyway, what you concentrate on and what you expose your kids to
    is limited by time, kid's interest, parent's interest, financial
    considerations, etc.  I don't think we should define "normal" as
    anything like
    1) activities a, b, and c must be included
    2) as many activites as possible must be included -- nothing should
       be in depth because that will limit the total number of things
    
    Somehow a lot of Americans seem to get really judgemental about
    a child showing excellence at something academic, but wouldn't get
    equally judgemental if the family spent an equal amount of time
    doing something like (ugh bletch) hunting, fishing, Nintendo,
    MTV, or TV, since those 
    are "normal" American activities (violin playing isn't).
    

    Years ago, long before DEC, long before becoming a parent or even
    thinking of it I took a course at Asabet Valley Vocational School in
    Hudson (near HLO and MRO's) called "Human behavior, growth and
    development"  at the time I took these it was because I was considering
    a career in nursing and need this and another I took at the same time
    on Anatomy.  As I was taking the course, 3 or 4 months twice a week, I
    thought many times that this is what every parent ought to take, just
    to try and stay one step ahead of thier children.  As a parent I am
    seriously considering taking the course again, purely as a parent this
    time.  I will go home tonite and try to put my hand on the text book, I
    found it extremely well written.  If you're into such things there was
    also a lot on expert theory such as Paget.  Try taking a course at a
    local college or school instead of or in addition to reading.
    
    BTW, I also second T.B. Brazelton's books, he's got to be the best
    pedi-expert there is today!!  Has anyone seen his program on Cable
    network, usually follows Joan London's(?sp) parenting program.  She's
    great too!