As of yesterday, our district has decided to remove 12 counseling positions. I agree that counselors are under-appreciated.
As National School Counseling Week draws to a close, it seems fitting to reflect on the state of the profession in our nation.
School counselors are highly trained individuals who help students improve their academic achievement, their personal and social development and their career planning. Their services help students resolve emotional and behavioral issues, often improving the climate of a school. And they help students develop a clearer focus or sense of direction, which can improve student achievement. Research over the past several decades shows the positive impact of school counselors.
But for all the evidence, the work of school counselors can be under-appreciated and is rarely acknowledged in discussions of school improvement. And in times of tough budgets, it is often the school counselor (or other support staff) whose role is cut.
As Valerie Strauss pointed out back in January, school counselors in America are expected to help an extremely large number of students. It is recommended that there be one school counselor for every 250 students. In 2008, nationwide there was one counselor for every 457 students – and that was before school budgets were slashed. In California there were 814 students per counselor. In Arizona, Minnesota and Utah there were more than 700 students per read more
Friday, March 4, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Various Note Taking Method for Middle & High School
There are so many fun and creative teaching techniques I could share, but I think taking and using notes are just as important in a classroom as a fun lab. Notes are taken in a lot of classroom and most students to do not use their notes to study or prepare for class and tests, especially in middle school. However, I believe good note-taking skills are important and there are creative ways to teach and explain notes to engage students in their own learning process.
I remember taking notes in middle and high school and zoning out. As long as the students were quiet and were writing, the teacher would go on and on with their lecture, and I never understood the importance of taking notes until college. So when I became a teacher, I change up my notes to keep the students engaged.
During the process of going over notes, I make sure to have pictures, video clips, and visual aids to help make science fun and exciting. To this day, I still have students singing a bacteria song from August, I found on You Tube when I was explaining prokaryotic cells to them. Although students know "note days" introduce new concepts that may take the whole period, they always look forward to the fun and various ways I make science interesting and engaging. Sometimes I find T-shirts and songs that go along with what I’m teaching and students always try to figure out how my shirt or song connects with the science concept they are learning. (Having copies of the notes makes it easier for absent or new students to have access to the information. The notes can also be given to my RSP students or any student who struggles with writing to keep).
One way is through interactive notes. I give the notes to the students in advance. Students are to copy the notes in Cornell note style (a school wide system). Throughout the notes, I will ask them simple questions that ask them to reflect back on the notes they are taking. I feel it is important for students to be thinking about the material they are learning, but the questions should not be too difficult since we haven’t reviewed the concepts as a class yet. I feel front loading the students with the notes makes it a lot easier for me to break down and explain the science concepts to the students the following day.
When we go over the notes, I break the notes into short segments, and use power teaching to have students repeat the vital information back to their partner. During power teaching, students are to share the information and use coordinated gestures I have them taught them with their lab partner, and their lab partner, is to repeat back the information in their own words. I call on students randomly to make sure the vital information was learned and shared. If the student is not able to explain the concept back to me or has a weak answer, I will review the material in a different way and then ask for students to explain the concept to their partner again.
Another way I will format my notes is to place the note information into question and answer format. One partner reads the question, the other partner reads the answers in 30 seconds (or whatever time frame I feel is needed for the notes). The next time we read the notes, I have the students switch roles or we start reading at a different section of the notes. I use this technique as a way to start or end class to help review the important concepts we are learning in science.
A third technique I use reviewing notes is using the summary box in Cornell notes, in various ways. I believe it is always useful for students to learn to summarize their notes and what they have learned, but sometimes I feel it is necessary to take their learning a step further to see how well they have mastered the science concepts. For example, in learning about cell organelles, I may ask students to explain what would happen in the cell if we were missing one of the organelles? Sometimes I will ask students to create a Venn Diagram to compare 2 concepts or make predictions based on their current knowledge.
Another technique in using notes is using their lab partners to check their work. Students will read their summaries, or answers to questions, to their partners to make sure their summaries make sense. If their lab partner doesn’t understand their summary, the students are encouraged to discuss the summary, clarify the concepts, and to make sure the sentences are written clearly. Then I call on students randomly, sometimes using playing cards with their names on it, to make sure that I am calling various students of different skills. This way I can determine if the students truly understood the concept I taught in class.
I remember taking notes in middle and high school and zoning out. As long as the students were quiet and were writing, the teacher would go on and on with their lecture, and I never understood the importance of taking notes until college. So when I became a teacher, I change up my notes to keep the students engaged.
During the process of going over notes, I make sure to have pictures, video clips, and visual aids to help make science fun and exciting. To this day, I still have students singing a bacteria song from August, I found on You Tube when I was explaining prokaryotic cells to them. Although students know "note days" introduce new concepts that may take the whole period, they always look forward to the fun and various ways I make science interesting and engaging. Sometimes I find T-shirts and songs that go along with what I’m teaching and students always try to figure out how my shirt or song connects with the science concept they are learning. (Having copies of the notes makes it easier for absent or new students to have access to the information. The notes can also be given to my RSP students or any student who struggles with writing to keep).
One way is through interactive notes. I give the notes to the students in advance. Students are to copy the notes in Cornell note style (a school wide system). Throughout the notes, I will ask them simple questions that ask them to reflect back on the notes they are taking. I feel it is important for students to be thinking about the material they are learning, but the questions should not be too difficult since we haven’t reviewed the concepts as a class yet. I feel front loading the students with the notes makes it a lot easier for me to break down and explain the science concepts to the students the following day.
When we go over the notes, I break the notes into short segments, and use power teaching to have students repeat the vital information back to their partner. During power teaching, students are to share the information and use coordinated gestures I have them taught them with their lab partner, and their lab partner, is to repeat back the information in their own words. I call on students randomly to make sure the vital information was learned and shared. If the student is not able to explain the concept back to me or has a weak answer, I will review the material in a different way and then ask for students to explain the concept to their partner again.
Another way I will format my notes is to place the note information into question and answer format. One partner reads the question, the other partner reads the answers in 30 seconds (or whatever time frame I feel is needed for the notes). The next time we read the notes, I have the students switch roles or we start reading at a different section of the notes. I use this technique as a way to start or end class to help review the important concepts we are learning in science.
A third technique I use reviewing notes is using the summary box in Cornell notes, in various ways. I believe it is always useful for students to learn to summarize their notes and what they have learned, but sometimes I feel it is necessary to take their learning a step further to see how well they have mastered the science concepts. For example, in learning about cell organelles, I may ask students to explain what would happen in the cell if we were missing one of the organelles? Sometimes I will ask students to create a Venn Diagram to compare 2 concepts or make predictions based on their current knowledge.
Another technique in using notes is using their lab partners to check their work. Students will read their summaries, or answers to questions, to their partners to make sure their summaries make sense. If their lab partner doesn’t understand their summary, the students are encouraged to discuss the summary, clarify the concepts, and to make sure the sentences are written clearly. Then I call on students randomly, sometimes using playing cards with their names on it, to make sure that I am calling various students of different skills. This way I can determine if the students truly understood the concept I taught in class.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Cash for Grades?
This article presents several pros and cons to the idea of paying students for good grades.
Cash for Grades?
Privately funded programs try paying students to boost achievement.
By Mary Ellen Flannery
Do you really get what you pay for? At the shoe store, yes. But when it comes to paying kids for grades, probably not – especially if what you’re trying to buy is a life-long love of learning.
Long a tactic of fed-up parents, the idea of paying for good grades has migrated from the family room to the school house. In states ranging from Texas to Massachusetts, a growing number of students are pocketing cold cash for good grades or test scores on Advanced Placement and SAT exams, typically through privately funded programs.
In Houston, a three-month-old, privately funded $1.5 million program will reward fifth-graders – and, notably, their parents – when they master basic math standards. Each family stands to earn $1,050, not a small amount, especially in a community where 80 percent of kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Meanwhile, down the road, more than 10,000 Dallas students have earned up to $400 for taking and passing Advanced Placement tests in a newly expanded $1.5 million program funded by a private foundation.
It makes sense to some. Says Stacey Priestley, a northern Indiana teacher: “My son gets money for grades. We tell him going to school and getting good grades is his job. If he does his job well, he gets paid just like a job in the real world.”
But most Americans, and many educators, still feel uncomfortable with the idea. According to the most recent national Phi Delta Kappa poll, one out of four Americans say students should be paid for their grades. There’s something about the practice that just feels. wrong. Isn’t there greater value in reading a good book than a certificate for cheese pizza? Isn’t education cheapened when its sum value is a remote chance at a limo ride? (Yes, some schools offer limo rides as incentives, as shown below in the video excerpt from the Freakonomics movie.)
Many teachers also say paying students for grades leads to practical problems in their classrooms, including pressure to inflate grades and conflict with students and parents. In Kentucky, where the Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship provides up to $500 in state lottery revenues to kids with all A’s, parents “rip teachers” when their kid gets a C, says teacher Chris Spoonamore.
But the bigger question is: Does it even work?
While proponents hope those millions will help close achievement gaps, especially in poor communities where a dollar really makes a difference, research shows that the money might better be spent on the kinds of things we know can help improve student achievement, like teacher training and smaller class sizes.
Rewarding Whom?
Barbara Marinak, an assistant professor of education at Penn State University, says the research on monetary rewards is quite clear: They don’t work. “Any type of ‘extrinsic’ reward, by and large, undermines motivation,” she told National Public Radio last year.
Similarly, Alfie Kohn, the author of Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s and Other Bribes, says the bigger the reward, the bigger the damage done.
Especially when it comes to creative work, research shows that money doesn’t work – in fact, it probably deters achievement in the long run. Moreover, any kind of extrinsic reward can be dangerous. In a well-known Stanford University experiment, more than three decades old, researchers divided preschoolers into two groups: one that would get gold stars for their drawings and one that would not. Both drew enthusiastically, but when asked to draw again – without a reward – the gold-star group cut its drawing time in half. It appeared as if they’d lost enthusiasm for the task when it didn’t come with a reward.
“What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning,” University of Rochester professor Edward Deci told TIME magazine. And, other research, with young students and teenagers, show that they all perform better and work harder when the task is interesting, fun to do, and relevant to their lives.
“There has to be intrinsic motivation,” says Kentucky’s Spoonamore.
More recently, Harvard economist Roland Fryer, Jr., ran a $6.3 million experiment involving 18,000 students in Washington, D.C., New York, Dallas and Chicago. In each city, the incentives looked different – with varying results. In New York, where kids were paid for good test scores, and in Chicago, where they were paid for good grades, achievement didn’t budge.
But in D.C., where kids were rewarded for a variety of tasks, including earning good grades, attending class and completing homework, some kids did marginally better on reading comprehension tests. And in Dallas, where kids got $2 for each book they read – more books were read, and reading comprehension scores significantly improved.
The difference? Simply playing kids for good grades or test scores doesn’t actually give them any more skills, Fryer theorized. The system needs to be more complicated – and more specific to the needs of children – to be effective.
Similarly, a growing program of rewarding kids for passing Advanced Placement tests also has a teacher training component. The National Math and Science initiative, which has poured millions of dollars into seven states, rewards both students and teachers up to $100 for each passing score, and it provides professional development for teachers. In Mashpee, Massachusetts, the local union agreed that its members should accept the financial incentive — and that money is collected in an account for teacher supplies and additional training.
A recent study showed that AP enrollment in those places is up, but it’s also increasing in many schools and districts without rewards as well. Said one Mashpee student to The Cape Cod Times, “"I think I'd just try my best anyway.(The class) is kind of a challenge, but it's a fun class because (our teacher) makes it fun.”
Blogger's Note:
Two things: 1. if students should get paid for doing a good "job" in school, then they need to be held responsible for taxes, school supplies, and other expenses. 2. I think we are forgetting that education is a free program; and we are considering paying students to do their "job" in a free program? It seems we have scrapped the bottom of the barrel when we are trying to pay students to do their job.
Cash for Grades?
Privately funded programs try paying students to boost achievement.
By Mary Ellen Flannery
Do you really get what you pay for? At the shoe store, yes. But when it comes to paying kids for grades, probably not – especially if what you’re trying to buy is a life-long love of learning.
Long a tactic of fed-up parents, the idea of paying for good grades has migrated from the family room to the school house. In states ranging from Texas to Massachusetts, a growing number of students are pocketing cold cash for good grades or test scores on Advanced Placement and SAT exams, typically through privately funded programs.
In Houston, a three-month-old, privately funded $1.5 million program will reward fifth-graders – and, notably, their parents – when they master basic math standards. Each family stands to earn $1,050, not a small amount, especially in a community where 80 percent of kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Meanwhile, down the road, more than 10,000 Dallas students have earned up to $400 for taking and passing Advanced Placement tests in a newly expanded $1.5 million program funded by a private foundation.
It makes sense to some. Says Stacey Priestley, a northern Indiana teacher: “My son gets money for grades. We tell him going to school and getting good grades is his job. If he does his job well, he gets paid just like a job in the real world.”
But most Americans, and many educators, still feel uncomfortable with the idea. According to the most recent national Phi Delta Kappa poll, one out of four Americans say students should be paid for their grades. There’s something about the practice that just feels. wrong. Isn’t there greater value in reading a good book than a certificate for cheese pizza? Isn’t education cheapened when its sum value is a remote chance at a limo ride? (Yes, some schools offer limo rides as incentives, as shown below in the video excerpt from the Freakonomics movie.)
Many teachers also say paying students for grades leads to practical problems in their classrooms, including pressure to inflate grades and conflict with students and parents. In Kentucky, where the Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship provides up to $500 in state lottery revenues to kids with all A’s, parents “rip teachers” when their kid gets a C, says teacher Chris Spoonamore.
But the bigger question is: Does it even work?
While proponents hope those millions will help close achievement gaps, especially in poor communities where a dollar really makes a difference, research shows that the money might better be spent on the kinds of things we know can help improve student achievement, like teacher training and smaller class sizes.
Rewarding Whom?
Barbara Marinak, an assistant professor of education at Penn State University, says the research on monetary rewards is quite clear: They don’t work. “Any type of ‘extrinsic’ reward, by and large, undermines motivation,” she told National Public Radio last year.
Similarly, Alfie Kohn, the author of Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s and Other Bribes, says the bigger the reward, the bigger the damage done.
Especially when it comes to creative work, research shows that money doesn’t work – in fact, it probably deters achievement in the long run. Moreover, any kind of extrinsic reward can be dangerous. In a well-known Stanford University experiment, more than three decades old, researchers divided preschoolers into two groups: one that would get gold stars for their drawings and one that would not. Both drew enthusiastically, but when asked to draw again – without a reward – the gold-star group cut its drawing time in half. It appeared as if they’d lost enthusiasm for the task when it didn’t come with a reward.
“What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning,” University of Rochester professor Edward Deci told TIME magazine. And, other research, with young students and teenagers, show that they all perform better and work harder when the task is interesting, fun to do, and relevant to their lives.
“There has to be intrinsic motivation,” says Kentucky’s Spoonamore.
More recently, Harvard economist Roland Fryer, Jr., ran a $6.3 million experiment involving 18,000 students in Washington, D.C., New York, Dallas and Chicago. In each city, the incentives looked different – with varying results. In New York, where kids were paid for good test scores, and in Chicago, where they were paid for good grades, achievement didn’t budge.
But in D.C., where kids were rewarded for a variety of tasks, including earning good grades, attending class and completing homework, some kids did marginally better on reading comprehension tests. And in Dallas, where kids got $2 for each book they read – more books were read, and reading comprehension scores significantly improved.
The difference? Simply playing kids for good grades or test scores doesn’t actually give them any more skills, Fryer theorized. The system needs to be more complicated – and more specific to the needs of children – to be effective.
Similarly, a growing program of rewarding kids for passing Advanced Placement tests also has a teacher training component. The National Math and Science initiative, which has poured millions of dollars into seven states, rewards both students and teachers up to $100 for each passing score, and it provides professional development for teachers. In Mashpee, Massachusetts, the local union agreed that its members should accept the financial incentive — and that money is collected in an account for teacher supplies and additional training.
A recent study showed that AP enrollment in those places is up, but it’s also increasing in many schools and districts without rewards as well. Said one Mashpee student to The Cape Cod Times, “"I think I'd just try my best anyway.(The class) is kind of a challenge, but it's a fun class because (our teacher) makes it fun.”
Blogger's Note:
Two things: 1. if students should get paid for doing a good "job" in school, then they need to be held responsible for taxes, school supplies, and other expenses. 2. I think we are forgetting that education is a free program; and we are considering paying students to do their "job" in a free program? It seems we have scrapped the bottom of the barrel when we are trying to pay students to do their job.
Monday, January 17, 2011
I liked this article from Redbook (Sept 2010) because it spoke of the balance needed between both parents to raise a family successfully.
7 Secrets of Low-Stress Families
It was the first experiment of its kind: Thirty-two California families opened their doors (their front doors, bedroom doors, even bathroom doors) to researchers from UCLA who wanted to find out how they manage the demands of work and family life. With a three-person crew, researchers occupied families' homes for four days from morning until bedtime, recording every minute spent folding laundry, every homework panic, every dinner table dispute about the yuckiness of vegetables. The researchers conducted interviews with each of the family members and measured their stress levels throughout the day. The families were studied between 2002 and 2005; each had two working parents, two or more children, and a mortgage — a profile that looks like many American households. "When I observed these families, I felt like I was looking in at my own life," says lead researcher Tami Kremer-Sadlik, Ph.D., director of research at UCLA's Center on the Everyday Lives of Families. "I'm a working mom with two children, and I could identify with the women we studied who reported feeling pressed for time and who were trying to balance work and family demands." But among those stressful moments, researchers also saw the key instances of warmth and love that make great families. And as Kremer-Sadlik and other female researchers who had their own families found out, getting a glimpse into the lives of other families gives us a unique perspective on how to better take care of our own. Use what they learned to calm stress and create joy in your house.
1. Low-stress couples don't divvy up the chores.
For one part of the project, Kremer-Sadlik and a colleague studied how couples' division of housework was connected to their marital satisfaction. "Surprisingly, it didn't matter how evenly couples split up the chores," Kremer-Sadlik says. "We found that both spouses were happier when both felt like they were working toward the same goal, regardless of who did more" (and women did more across the board). "The women in happy marriages told us that their spouses seemed to have an understanding of what needed to be done. We observed their husbands setting the table while their wife was cooking, or straightening up without being told what to do." Sound too good to be true? Know that just talking about your joint mission for the family can eliminate much of the "keeping score" conflict. "The happy couples often discussed their shared goals for their family," she says. "There was more of a we-ness there — and that spilled over into chores. Their attitude was more, 'We do for our family,' not, 'I do this for you.'" But with two working parents' and children's schedules to coordinate, researcher Darby Saxbe, Ph.D., a 33-year-old mom from Los Angeles, observed many couples communicating only about who needed to do what. "It felt like they were running a business!" Saxbe says. "Squeezing in little moments of fun with your partner — whether you steal a quick kiss or exchange a joke — makes a difference." And researchers noticed that in some homes where the wives expressed more appreciation, the husbands also took on more household tasks.
2. Low-stress families find small moments of togetherness.
Every mom fantasizes about taking the perfect family vacation or spending a blissed-out day with her husband and kids. But real-life bonding time is made up of much smaller events. "I think a lot of us have this idea that we need to create big moments of togetherness, but we saw so many times that families had opportunities to connect throughout the day that they weren't aware of," Kremer-Sadlik says. Those small moments might be the 10 minutes you spend braiding your daughter's hair or your time spent cheering on your son at his Little League game. "I remember one moment when a daughter and mom were folding laundry, and the daughter stuck her foot in a sock and challenged her mom to find her foot among the pile of laundry," she recalls. "It was a loving moment of laughing and playing around in the midst of daily life."
Belinda Campos, Ph.D., whose focus in the study was family relationships, noticed the same thing. "There's this cultural ideal of wanting to carve out quality time," says the 36-year-old from Irvine, CA. "But many families overlooked the daily stuff that keeps you connected." One example was the way families reacted when dads came home from work. "There were two types of behaviors among the families: those where the wives and children greeted the dad with a warm hello, and those where the children never got up from their video games and the wives greeted Dad with logistics like, 'Did you pick up the chicken for dinner?'" Campos says. "But those seconds after Dad walked in the door may have shaped his mood for the night. It's such a small thing; that's the moment to acknowledge that a person is coming into a place where he matters."
3. Low-stress parents are role models — not pals.
Treating your partner with respect is not only good for your marriage — it also actually affects the whole family dynamic. "When spouses showed patience and support, as opposed to being impatient, sarcastic, or critical, their children were more respectful toward them, and the smoother the households ran," Kremer-Sadlik says of her findings from a previous study. "Their mini goals throughout the day, such as getting dinner on the table or finishing homework, ran more smoothly and more pleasantly." The same was true for parents who set the rules for the kids, as opposed to those who let their children help make the decisions. "When parents delegated chores to their children, rather than asking them which chores they wanted to do, there were fewer tantrums and arguments," Campos says. "There was still affection and humor in homes where parents were the bosses, but there was never a question of who was in charge."
4. Low-stress moms make dinner from scratch.
Believe it or not, using processed convenience foods for dinner doesn't actually save you cooking time. That's what really surprised 39-year-old mom and researcher Margaret Beck, whose focus for the study was food preparation. "All the families spent roughly one hour preparing dinner, whether they used processed foods or fresh ingredients," she says. The moms who prepared more convenience foods tended to overcompensate by having more courses — either side dishes or separate meals for the kids — which wasted time. And if you want your children to eat what's on the table: "The kids who assisted in the food preparation always ate what was served," Beck says. "And the mood in the house was lighter and happier when the kids spend cooking time in the kitchen." Talk about a win-win!
5. Low-stress moms take five minutes of me time.
There's a secret to being fully present and enjoying family life after a demanding day at work: "The findings suggested that when women unwound alone for 5 or 10 minutes, it set a positive tone for the rest of the night," says researcher Shu-wen Wang, a 28-year-old mom from Los Angeles who helped review more than 1,540 hours of footage. "Moms reported unwinding by exercising, gardening, or having a candy bar — not that I recommend that last approach! I always felt selfish taking time for me, especially after working all day, but this study proved to me how healthy it is for moms and their families."
6. Low-stress families watch TV together.
If you feel guilty every time your family plops in front a television after a long day rather than doing something more interactive, don't sweat it. "Families who watched TV together showed many bonding behaviors," Campos says. "Bonding can be sharing snacks, high-fiving each other if the Lakers score a basket, or guessing trivia questions together during Jeopardy!" Even sitcoms can bring you closer. "When families laugh together during a TV show, that's a shared moment they have in common, and it creates a memory," she says. So on days where you just can't muster the energy to recruit the kids for crazy 8's or kickball in the yard, know that a little TV time can be good for your family too.
7. Low-stress families embrace daily rituals.
"I used to believe that spontaneity and excitement were what kept couples connected, but it's truly the routine and continuity that set the foundation for making family relationships thrive," Wang says. "Whether it was a couple sitting down at the end of the day with a cup of coffee or parents reading a bedtime story to their children, these little moments are what make family life so comforting and kept couples close." Sometimes, the mad-dash moments seem to define our days, but "it's only when we find moments to slow down that we can fully appreciate those everyday moments that make a family," Saxbe says. "I remember watching a mom kissing her son and tucking him into bed. The son responded, 'I want another kiss, Mommy!' So the mom kissed him again. They repeated this five or six times — it was so sweet! Watching this made me appreciate how lucky I am to have a family I care about and how I how important it is to cherish these little moments of love when they come along."
7 Secrets of Low-Stress Families
It was the first experiment of its kind: Thirty-two California families opened their doors (their front doors, bedroom doors, even bathroom doors) to researchers from UCLA who wanted to find out how they manage the demands of work and family life. With a three-person crew, researchers occupied families' homes for four days from morning until bedtime, recording every minute spent folding laundry, every homework panic, every dinner table dispute about the yuckiness of vegetables. The researchers conducted interviews with each of the family members and measured their stress levels throughout the day. The families were studied between 2002 and 2005; each had two working parents, two or more children, and a mortgage — a profile that looks like many American households. "When I observed these families, I felt like I was looking in at my own life," says lead researcher Tami Kremer-Sadlik, Ph.D., director of research at UCLA's Center on the Everyday Lives of Families. "I'm a working mom with two children, and I could identify with the women we studied who reported feeling pressed for time and who were trying to balance work and family demands." But among those stressful moments, researchers also saw the key instances of warmth and love that make great families. And as Kremer-Sadlik and other female researchers who had their own families found out, getting a glimpse into the lives of other families gives us a unique perspective on how to better take care of our own. Use what they learned to calm stress and create joy in your house.
1. Low-stress couples don't divvy up the chores.
For one part of the project, Kremer-Sadlik and a colleague studied how couples' division of housework was connected to their marital satisfaction. "Surprisingly, it didn't matter how evenly couples split up the chores," Kremer-Sadlik says. "We found that both spouses were happier when both felt like they were working toward the same goal, regardless of who did more" (and women did more across the board). "The women in happy marriages told us that their spouses seemed to have an understanding of what needed to be done. We observed their husbands setting the table while their wife was cooking, or straightening up without being told what to do." Sound too good to be true? Know that just talking about your joint mission for the family can eliminate much of the "keeping score" conflict. "The happy couples often discussed their shared goals for their family," she says. "There was more of a we-ness there — and that spilled over into chores. Their attitude was more, 'We do for our family,' not, 'I do this for you.'" But with two working parents' and children's schedules to coordinate, researcher Darby Saxbe, Ph.D., a 33-year-old mom from Los Angeles, observed many couples communicating only about who needed to do what. "It felt like they were running a business!" Saxbe says. "Squeezing in little moments of fun with your partner — whether you steal a quick kiss or exchange a joke — makes a difference." And researchers noticed that in some homes where the wives expressed more appreciation, the husbands also took on more household tasks.
2. Low-stress families find small moments of togetherness.
Every mom fantasizes about taking the perfect family vacation or spending a blissed-out day with her husband and kids. But real-life bonding time is made up of much smaller events. "I think a lot of us have this idea that we need to create big moments of togetherness, but we saw so many times that families had opportunities to connect throughout the day that they weren't aware of," Kremer-Sadlik says. Those small moments might be the 10 minutes you spend braiding your daughter's hair or your time spent cheering on your son at his Little League game. "I remember one moment when a daughter and mom were folding laundry, and the daughter stuck her foot in a sock and challenged her mom to find her foot among the pile of laundry," she recalls. "It was a loving moment of laughing and playing around in the midst of daily life."
Belinda Campos, Ph.D., whose focus in the study was family relationships, noticed the same thing. "There's this cultural ideal of wanting to carve out quality time," says the 36-year-old from Irvine, CA. "But many families overlooked the daily stuff that keeps you connected." One example was the way families reacted when dads came home from work. "There were two types of behaviors among the families: those where the wives and children greeted the dad with a warm hello, and those where the children never got up from their video games and the wives greeted Dad with logistics like, 'Did you pick up the chicken for dinner?'" Campos says. "But those seconds after Dad walked in the door may have shaped his mood for the night. It's such a small thing; that's the moment to acknowledge that a person is coming into a place where he matters."
3. Low-stress parents are role models — not pals.
Treating your partner with respect is not only good for your marriage — it also actually affects the whole family dynamic. "When spouses showed patience and support, as opposed to being impatient, sarcastic, or critical, their children were more respectful toward them, and the smoother the households ran," Kremer-Sadlik says of her findings from a previous study. "Their mini goals throughout the day, such as getting dinner on the table or finishing homework, ran more smoothly and more pleasantly." The same was true for parents who set the rules for the kids, as opposed to those who let their children help make the decisions. "When parents delegated chores to their children, rather than asking them which chores they wanted to do, there were fewer tantrums and arguments," Campos says. "There was still affection and humor in homes where parents were the bosses, but there was never a question of who was in charge."
4. Low-stress moms make dinner from scratch.
Believe it or not, using processed convenience foods for dinner doesn't actually save you cooking time. That's what really surprised 39-year-old mom and researcher Margaret Beck, whose focus for the study was food preparation. "All the families spent roughly one hour preparing dinner, whether they used processed foods or fresh ingredients," she says. The moms who prepared more convenience foods tended to overcompensate by having more courses — either side dishes or separate meals for the kids — which wasted time. And if you want your children to eat what's on the table: "The kids who assisted in the food preparation always ate what was served," Beck says. "And the mood in the house was lighter and happier when the kids spend cooking time in the kitchen." Talk about a win-win!
5. Low-stress moms take five minutes of me time.
There's a secret to being fully present and enjoying family life after a demanding day at work: "The findings suggested that when women unwound alone for 5 or 10 minutes, it set a positive tone for the rest of the night," says researcher Shu-wen Wang, a 28-year-old mom from Los Angeles who helped review more than 1,540 hours of footage. "Moms reported unwinding by exercising, gardening, or having a candy bar — not that I recommend that last approach! I always felt selfish taking time for me, especially after working all day, but this study proved to me how healthy it is for moms and their families."
6. Low-stress families watch TV together.
If you feel guilty every time your family plops in front a television after a long day rather than doing something more interactive, don't sweat it. "Families who watched TV together showed many bonding behaviors," Campos says. "Bonding can be sharing snacks, high-fiving each other if the Lakers score a basket, or guessing trivia questions together during Jeopardy!" Even sitcoms can bring you closer. "When families laugh together during a TV show, that's a shared moment they have in common, and it creates a memory," she says. So on days where you just can't muster the energy to recruit the kids for crazy 8's or kickball in the yard, know that a little TV time can be good for your family too.
7. Low-stress families embrace daily rituals.
"I used to believe that spontaneity and excitement were what kept couples connected, but it's truly the routine and continuity that set the foundation for making family relationships thrive," Wang says. "Whether it was a couple sitting down at the end of the day with a cup of coffee or parents reading a bedtime story to their children, these little moments are what make family life so comforting and kept couples close." Sometimes, the mad-dash moments seem to define our days, but "it's only when we find moments to slow down that we can fully appreciate those everyday moments that make a family," Saxbe says. "I remember watching a mom kissing her son and tucking him into bed. The son responded, 'I want another kiss, Mommy!' So the mom kissed him again. They repeated this five or six times — it was so sweet! Watching this made me appreciate how lucky I am to have a family I care about and how I how important it is to cherish these little moments of love when they come along."
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Shoestring Philanthropist | Parade.com
The Shoestring Philanthropist | Parade.com
’Tis the season to give, and few people embody the spirit of altruism better than Marc Gold. For 22 years, he has trekked through Asia handing out money to the needy in small amounts, as little as 50 cents and rarely exceeding $500. But even though the dollar figures are small, the impact is big. In Vietnam, a modest donation was enough for a widow to buy a sewing machine and start a business. In Aceh, Indonesia, a fisherman fixed his boat and returned to self-sufficiency.
Compared with global aid organizations and their billion-dollar budgets, Gold’s operation is tiny, but by his own estimate, he has touched over 50,000 lives. An energetic cross between Santa Claus and Johnny Appleseed, Gold, 61, spends four months a year raising funds in friends’ living rooms and the rest on the road finding more individuals to help.
In 1989, while touring India, Gold met Thinlay, a Tibetan refugee, who invited him to his home. Thinlay’s wife, Tsering, welcomed him but kept holding her ears—she was suffering from a painful, deadly infection. Gold found her a physician and bought the antibiotic she needed. It cost just $1—and saved Tsering’s life. Then Gold spent $35 on a hearing aid so she could return to work and her son could go to school. “When I pressed the switch to turn on the hearing aid, her burst of joy burned into my brain,” Gold recalls. “I was thunderstruck, realizing I could restore her hearing for a relative pittance. I thought you had to be wealthy to do such things.”
Returning to the U.S. with a new sense of purpose, Gold wrote to 100 friends, hoping to raise $200 to give away on his next trip. He raised $2000. Today, his donors—through his nonprofit, 100 Friends—exceed 4000. But outside of keeping them informed with a newsletter, he sends no mass mailings and has no paid employees. His mantra is simple: “You give it to me, and I give it to them.”
Five years ago, Gold pared down his belongings to a few duffel bags and boxes. Formerly a teacher in San Francisco, he works out of a Bangkok hotel room and lives off retirement savings and a modest pension. He keeps his expenses—which may include hiring a translator or a van to deliver, for instance, the tools to help a young man open a bike-repair shop—low.
When he meets someone, Gold sits down to chat and maybe shares a cup of tea. Mostly, he listens. He has a knack for spotting people who aren’t on the radar of the large aid groups. One day in Kolkata, India, a rickshaw ferrying Gold broke down, and the driver wept. An interpreter explained that the vehicle was the man’s livelihood and home. Gold paid a mechanic $40 to repair the rickshaw and requested that the driver use it once a month to transport others in need. In Gyantse, Tibet, he saw a girl struggling with a large cart, which held her paralyzed mother. Thanks to him, the mother has a wheelchair and the daughter goes to school.
“Someone once asked me if I was playing God,” Gold says. “The people I help don’t ask questions like that. They only know a stranger is willing to help them.”
While Gold has helped pay for the building of some schools and libraries, the bulk of his giving is small. Rather than expand, he encourages others to become shoestring philanthropists, sharing his experiences and contacts and often giving them their first $100. Arlene Butler, a social worker and minister from Cape Charles, Va., heard about his work in 2006. “I’d saved $300, so I called Marc and asked if he’d help me give it away,” she recalls. Instead, he gave her advice, so she sent out e-mails seeking donations, netting $3000. That year, she went to Thailand and gave the money to sick children. “Now our kids are involved in our philanthropic travel. In Panama, we helped fund the education program of a tribe in the jungle,” Butler says. “It changes you inside when you have a chance to do these things.”
Three More Shoestring Philanthropists
A passion for travel and a growing awareness of global poverty have drawn other Americans to the kind of micro-philanthropy practiced by Marc Gold and 100 Friends. Here are three people who've been influenced by Gold and how they're choosing to give back:
A Fulbright Scholar with degrees in cultural anthropology and international relations, Adam Carter decided to create his own nonprofit after becoming disillusioned with the bureaucracy of large international development agencies. He says, "Marc Gold's lifestyle shined like a beacon for me – here was a guy who carved out this incredible existence, helping so many people yet having an amazing time in the process." Gold mentored Carter on fundraising and methodology, shared his contacts, and donated the first $100 to Carter's new nonprofit, Cause & Affect Foundation. Now Carter, 36, backpacks from village to village through Africa, Latin America, and South America: "I treasure the personal connection to folks on the ground, that immediate contact with people in need. My previous experience was great but I didn't want to be a tiny cog in a gigantic wheel." The best advice he received from Gold? "Don't feel overwhelmed. If you only help one single person you've made the world a better place. Start there." Carter's video shows an exuberant humanitarian equally at home in dirt villages and in the Brazilian slums. His group has brought wheelchairs to amputees ("Once you're mobile you can earn a living") and funded six-person factories and workshops. "By immersing ourselves in the local culture, we seek out the best hands-on way to help local leaders improve their communities, while giving people a chance to climb out of poverty and improve their own lives," he explains. Every summer in Chicago, Carter also mentors inner-city boys from the most violent neighborhoods, and he earns his travel expenses by working as a beer vendor at Wrigley Field. He is currently pursuing humanitarian efforts in his favorite country, Brazil. (www.causeandaffectfoundation.org)
Thanks to Atlanta's Dwight Turner, volunteering in Bangkok is simple. Located in the storied Thai capital, his nonprofit offers travelers a chance to participate in short-term volunteering--and people can even sign up online even before they leave on their trips. Volunteer assignments may include a morning spent teaching English at a school for the blind or visiting families segregated in immigration centers. Turner, 26, went to teach English in Thailand in 2006 but found himself staying on in the country afterwards. Like Adam Carter, he is a generation younger than Marc Gold. He says, "I was inspired by what Marc was doing. I loved his idea that it doesn't take huge organizations to make a difference." He credits Gold with "pushing me to step out and do things on my own," and started his organization with the assistance of Gold and his extensive contacts. "That was important because he has quality information about small grassroots projects that you can only know by going there." Turner's group is called In Search of Sanuk (ISOS) -- "sanuk" is Thai for ‘ fun' -- and Turner dubs his vision "funlanthropy," declaring, "While alleviating the ills of urban poverty in Bangkok, we invite you to make new friends and have fun helping others." Travelers can find ISOS through Facebook and Twitter. Last year, Turner worked with more than 200 volunteers. (www.insearchofsanuk.com/volunteer)
***
"My dream is to put orphanages on the big tourist map," says Ryan Anderson, 34, who like Turner, is also turning travelers into temporary volunteers. "People come through Cambodia to go see the temples of Angkor Wat. Then, when they see our posters, they decide to visit us too. Tourists like lending a hand, especially to kids." After graduating from Loyola University in 1999, Anderson backpacked throughout Asia, volunteering in Nepal and opening a Mexican restaurant in Thailand. He eventually chose to focus on several Cambodian orphanages for his philanthropic efforts and started the nonprofit Hands on Helping, saying: "I wanted to do more than walk orphans to school and make sure they brushed their teeth. I realized I could start a small, fun charity that would bring me to amazing destinations and let me improve the lives of unfortunate children." What drew him to Marc Gold? "Marc's excitement and energy, how he adds fun to what he does. He's tech savvy; his newsletters for donors are prompt and accurate. And he goes to beautiful, remote areas of the world that often are ignored." Anderson adds, "One thing I especially love is his knack for odd, ‘big-small' gestures. I've put my own spin on it. It could be simple, like buying all the fruit from an old lady at the market and giving it to the orphanage so she can take a day off and stay with her family." Anderson -- who goes by the nickname "Ando" -- would someday like to devote himself full-time to micro-philanthropy. For now, he supports himself by running a boat-cleaning service business in Chicago during the warmer months. (www.handsonhelping.org)
’Tis the season to give, and few people embody the spirit of altruism better than Marc Gold. For 22 years, he has trekked through Asia handing out money to the needy in small amounts, as little as 50 cents and rarely exceeding $500. But even though the dollar figures are small, the impact is big. In Vietnam, a modest donation was enough for a widow to buy a sewing machine and start a business. In Aceh, Indonesia, a fisherman fixed his boat and returned to self-sufficiency.
Compared with global aid organizations and their billion-dollar budgets, Gold’s operation is tiny, but by his own estimate, he has touched over 50,000 lives. An energetic cross between Santa Claus and Johnny Appleseed, Gold, 61, spends four months a year raising funds in friends’ living rooms and the rest on the road finding more individuals to help.
In 1989, while touring India, Gold met Thinlay, a Tibetan refugee, who invited him to his home. Thinlay’s wife, Tsering, welcomed him but kept holding her ears—she was suffering from a painful, deadly infection. Gold found her a physician and bought the antibiotic she needed. It cost just $1—and saved Tsering’s life. Then Gold spent $35 on a hearing aid so she could return to work and her son could go to school. “When I pressed the switch to turn on the hearing aid, her burst of joy burned into my brain,” Gold recalls. “I was thunderstruck, realizing I could restore her hearing for a relative pittance. I thought you had to be wealthy to do such things.”
Returning to the U.S. with a new sense of purpose, Gold wrote to 100 friends, hoping to raise $200 to give away on his next trip. He raised $2000. Today, his donors—through his nonprofit, 100 Friends—exceed 4000. But outside of keeping them informed with a newsletter, he sends no mass mailings and has no paid employees. His mantra is simple: “You give it to me, and I give it to them.”
Five years ago, Gold pared down his belongings to a few duffel bags and boxes. Formerly a teacher in San Francisco, he works out of a Bangkok hotel room and lives off retirement savings and a modest pension. He keeps his expenses—which may include hiring a translator or a van to deliver, for instance, the tools to help a young man open a bike-repair shop—low.
When he meets someone, Gold sits down to chat and maybe shares a cup of tea. Mostly, he listens. He has a knack for spotting people who aren’t on the radar of the large aid groups. One day in Kolkata, India, a rickshaw ferrying Gold broke down, and the driver wept. An interpreter explained that the vehicle was the man’s livelihood and home. Gold paid a mechanic $40 to repair the rickshaw and requested that the driver use it once a month to transport others in need. In Gyantse, Tibet, he saw a girl struggling with a large cart, which held her paralyzed mother. Thanks to him, the mother has a wheelchair and the daughter goes to school.
“Someone once asked me if I was playing God,” Gold says. “The people I help don’t ask questions like that. They only know a stranger is willing to help them.”
While Gold has helped pay for the building of some schools and libraries, the bulk of his giving is small. Rather than expand, he encourages others to become shoestring philanthropists, sharing his experiences and contacts and often giving them their first $100. Arlene Butler, a social worker and minister from Cape Charles, Va., heard about his work in 2006. “I’d saved $300, so I called Marc and asked if he’d help me give it away,” she recalls. Instead, he gave her advice, so she sent out e-mails seeking donations, netting $3000. That year, she went to Thailand and gave the money to sick children. “Now our kids are involved in our philanthropic travel. In Panama, we helped fund the education program of a tribe in the jungle,” Butler says. “It changes you inside when you have a chance to do these things.”
Three More Shoestring Philanthropists
A passion for travel and a growing awareness of global poverty have drawn other Americans to the kind of micro-philanthropy practiced by Marc Gold and 100 Friends. Here are three people who've been influenced by Gold and how they're choosing to give back:
A Fulbright Scholar with degrees in cultural anthropology and international relations, Adam Carter decided to create his own nonprofit after becoming disillusioned with the bureaucracy of large international development agencies. He says, "Marc Gold's lifestyle shined like a beacon for me – here was a guy who carved out this incredible existence, helping so many people yet having an amazing time in the process." Gold mentored Carter on fundraising and methodology, shared his contacts, and donated the first $100 to Carter's new nonprofit, Cause & Affect Foundation. Now Carter, 36, backpacks from village to village through Africa, Latin America, and South America: "I treasure the personal connection to folks on the ground, that immediate contact with people in need. My previous experience was great but I didn't want to be a tiny cog in a gigantic wheel." The best advice he received from Gold? "Don't feel overwhelmed. If you only help one single person you've made the world a better place. Start there." Carter's video shows an exuberant humanitarian equally at home in dirt villages and in the Brazilian slums. His group has brought wheelchairs to amputees ("Once you're mobile you can earn a living") and funded six-person factories and workshops. "By immersing ourselves in the local culture, we seek out the best hands-on way to help local leaders improve their communities, while giving people a chance to climb out of poverty and improve their own lives," he explains. Every summer in Chicago, Carter also mentors inner-city boys from the most violent neighborhoods, and he earns his travel expenses by working as a beer vendor at Wrigley Field. He is currently pursuing humanitarian efforts in his favorite country, Brazil. (www.causeandaffectfoundation.org)
Thanks to Atlanta's Dwight Turner, volunteering in Bangkok is simple. Located in the storied Thai capital, his nonprofit offers travelers a chance to participate in short-term volunteering--and people can even sign up online even before they leave on their trips. Volunteer assignments may include a morning spent teaching English at a school for the blind or visiting families segregated in immigration centers. Turner, 26, went to teach English in Thailand in 2006 but found himself staying on in the country afterwards. Like Adam Carter, he is a generation younger than Marc Gold. He says, "I was inspired by what Marc was doing. I loved his idea that it doesn't take huge organizations to make a difference." He credits Gold with "pushing me to step out and do things on my own," and started his organization with the assistance of Gold and his extensive contacts. "That was important because he has quality information about small grassroots projects that you can only know by going there." Turner's group is called In Search of Sanuk (ISOS) -- "sanuk" is Thai for ‘ fun' -- and Turner dubs his vision "funlanthropy," declaring, "While alleviating the ills of urban poverty in Bangkok, we invite you to make new friends and have fun helping others." Travelers can find ISOS through Facebook and Twitter. Last year, Turner worked with more than 200 volunteers. (www.insearchofsanuk.com/volunteer)
***
"My dream is to put orphanages on the big tourist map," says Ryan Anderson, 34, who like Turner, is also turning travelers into temporary volunteers. "People come through Cambodia to go see the temples of Angkor Wat. Then, when they see our posters, they decide to visit us too. Tourists like lending a hand, especially to kids." After graduating from Loyola University in 1999, Anderson backpacked throughout Asia, volunteering in Nepal and opening a Mexican restaurant in Thailand. He eventually chose to focus on several Cambodian orphanages for his philanthropic efforts and started the nonprofit Hands on Helping, saying: "I wanted to do more than walk orphans to school and make sure they brushed their teeth. I realized I could start a small, fun charity that would bring me to amazing destinations and let me improve the lives of unfortunate children." What drew him to Marc Gold? "Marc's excitement and energy, how he adds fun to what he does. He's tech savvy; his newsletters for donors are prompt and accurate. And he goes to beautiful, remote areas of the world that often are ignored." Anderson adds, "One thing I especially love is his knack for odd, ‘big-small' gestures. I've put my own spin on it. It could be simple, like buying all the fruit from an old lady at the market and giving it to the orphanage so she can take a day off and stay with her family." Anderson -- who goes by the nickname "Ando" -- would someday like to devote himself full-time to micro-philanthropy. For now, he supports himself by running a boat-cleaning service business in Chicago during the warmer months. (www.handsonhelping.org)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Tricks for Getting Sleep in the Newborn Months
BabyCenter moms tell you all their tricks for squeezing in more zzzzs during those crazy newborn months:
"In the morning, stay in your PJs and keep going back to bed until you get enough sleep - even if that means you don't get up until noon!"
"My husband and I slept in shifts. After feeding the baby around 10 p.m., I went to sleep and my husband stayed up and put him to bed. Since I was breastfeeding, I was the one who needed to get up at 2 or 4 a.m. to feed him, so my husband slept through that. I felt better with that extra two hours I got early in the night."
"Sleep when the baby sleeps except for one nap. Use that time to do dishes and laundry."
"Buy a baby swing. They are wonderful for those late nights when your baby is either crying or won't sleep. Strap her in and you know she's safe — then you can catch some zz's on the couch next to her."
"Once I made up my mind that I wasn't going to get any sleep that night, it made it easier to cope. It was when I obsessed about getting sleep that I had problems dealing with the lack of sleep."
"If your partner's habits (restlessness, snoring) keep you from sleeping, ask him to sleep somewhere else for awhile."
"Don't wait until nighttime to catch up on sleep, because that's when your baby wants to be up. I slept at least once during the day when my baby napped, and that made all the difference between being a nice mommy and a mean mommy."
"The first four nights were the hardest, getting up every two hours to go into another room to feed the baby, hoping she wouldn't wake when I laid her down. The fifth night, I took her to bed with me, and we both slept like a dream. Now I enjoy eight hours of sleep a night."
Baby sleep: Seven tips
Seven great tips from parents and experts for getting your baby to sleep.
"Have a lot of pillows for comfort — even if you don't get a lot of sleep, it feels good."
"Don't worry about getting the dishes done or cooking dinner. I lost out on so much sleep because I was trying to keep my house together, and by the time I was ready to lie down, guess who was awake."
"Get someone else to watch the baby while you nap, even if you have to pay a babysitter."
"I've learned after three children not to worry too much if my baby doesn't want to eat every three hours. If her last feeding was at 11 p.m. and she sleeps until 4 a.m., then the best thing to do is enjoy the sleep while you can."
"When all else fails, put a blanket (not a comforter, but a flat blanket) on the floor and lie down with your baby. You will get some sleep — maybe not the most comfortable sleep, but sleep nonetheless."
"My husband gets up with the baby first, changing her and comforting her, which gives me time to prepare for breastfeeding (waking up a little, using the restroom, and getting a glass of water). He has been a great help!"
"Catnapping works wonders for new moms. Set an alarm for 15 or 20 minutes. You'll be surprised how much it helps to close your eyes for even a short period of time."
"At night, put the baby down in a separate room and turn the monitor low enough so you can hear a cry but not grunts and whines."
"My nurse advised me to take six-hour shifts with my husband. That way, each of us got some solid sleep. Once we started doing that, we both felt better."
"You know how they always tell you "Sleep when your baby sleeps"? Well, I tried, but I was so overtired and anxious about being a new mother that I couldn't sleep! My doctor prescribed a sleeping pill, and it really helped me get the rest I needed."
For me:
For baby #1, I needed to turn the monitor down because he grunted and made a lot of noise, waking me up every 10 minutes. The car seat was a great place for him too because he would feel snuggled and I sometimes got 3-4 hours of sleep in a row.
For baby #2, the car seat and swing were great in getting me consistent sleep as mentioned before. In the mornings I brought the baby to bed with me to nurse and we would nap for another hour or two. I don't move much when I sleep, so I was comfortable with this arrangement (there is always a concern the parent will squash the baby in their sleep) and it got some extra sleep during those early months. I also started a bedtime routine early on (after 2 weeks of observing what time the baby went down for his deep sleep), and adjusted it as he got older and his needs changed. Once he got use to the routine, I was slowly able to move his bedtime up so by 5 months he was going to bed between 7-8pm like his older brother.
"In the morning, stay in your PJs and keep going back to bed until you get enough sleep - even if that means you don't get up until noon!"
"My husband and I slept in shifts. After feeding the baby around 10 p.m., I went to sleep and my husband stayed up and put him to bed. Since I was breastfeeding, I was the one who needed to get up at 2 or 4 a.m. to feed him, so my husband slept through that. I felt better with that extra two hours I got early in the night."
"Sleep when the baby sleeps except for one nap. Use that time to do dishes and laundry."
"Buy a baby swing. They are wonderful for those late nights when your baby is either crying or won't sleep. Strap her in and you know she's safe — then you can catch some zz's on the couch next to her."
"Once I made up my mind that I wasn't going to get any sleep that night, it made it easier to cope. It was when I obsessed about getting sleep that I had problems dealing with the lack of sleep."
"If your partner's habits (restlessness, snoring) keep you from sleeping, ask him to sleep somewhere else for awhile."
"Don't wait until nighttime to catch up on sleep, because that's when your baby wants to be up. I slept at least once during the day when my baby napped, and that made all the difference between being a nice mommy and a mean mommy."
"The first four nights were the hardest, getting up every two hours to go into another room to feed the baby, hoping she wouldn't wake when I laid her down. The fifth night, I took her to bed with me, and we both slept like a dream. Now I enjoy eight hours of sleep a night."
Baby sleep: Seven tips
Seven great tips from parents and experts for getting your baby to sleep.
"Have a lot of pillows for comfort — even if you don't get a lot of sleep, it feels good."
"Don't worry about getting the dishes done or cooking dinner. I lost out on so much sleep because I was trying to keep my house together, and by the time I was ready to lie down, guess who was awake."
"Get someone else to watch the baby while you nap, even if you have to pay a babysitter."
"I've learned after three children not to worry too much if my baby doesn't want to eat every three hours. If her last feeding was at 11 p.m. and she sleeps until 4 a.m., then the best thing to do is enjoy the sleep while you can."
"When all else fails, put a blanket (not a comforter, but a flat blanket) on the floor and lie down with your baby. You will get some sleep — maybe not the most comfortable sleep, but sleep nonetheless."
"My husband gets up with the baby first, changing her and comforting her, which gives me time to prepare for breastfeeding (waking up a little, using the restroom, and getting a glass of water). He has been a great help!"
"Catnapping works wonders for new moms. Set an alarm for 15 or 20 minutes. You'll be surprised how much it helps to close your eyes for even a short period of time."
"At night, put the baby down in a separate room and turn the monitor low enough so you can hear a cry but not grunts and whines."
"My nurse advised me to take six-hour shifts with my husband. That way, each of us got some solid sleep. Once we started doing that, we both felt better."
"You know how they always tell you "Sleep when your baby sleeps"? Well, I tried, but I was so overtired and anxious about being a new mother that I couldn't sleep! My doctor prescribed a sleeping pill, and it really helped me get the rest I needed."
For me:
For baby #1, I needed to turn the monitor down because he grunted and made a lot of noise, waking me up every 10 minutes. The car seat was a great place for him too because he would feel snuggled and I sometimes got 3-4 hours of sleep in a row.
For baby #2, the car seat and swing were great in getting me consistent sleep as mentioned before. In the mornings I brought the baby to bed with me to nurse and we would nap for another hour or two. I don't move much when I sleep, so I was comfortable with this arrangement (there is always a concern the parent will squash the baby in their sleep) and it got some extra sleep during those early months. I also started a bedtime routine early on (after 2 weeks of observing what time the baby went down for his deep sleep), and adjusted it as he got older and his needs changed. Once he got use to the routine, I was slowly able to move his bedtime up so by 5 months he was going to bed between 7-8pm like his older brother.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Forget the Joneses Holiday Boot Camp Starts MONDAY
I have decided to join this blog forum to see how I can save $ and spend quality time with my young family. I look forward to reading from other participants as well. You can join too!
Nov 21 (my youngest is 7mo old today!)
Camp was supposed to start Nov 15, but I never got an email like I thought I would. So I grabbed a couple of minutes today and looked "boot camp" on mommysavers.com and found some postings. We are supposed to create a holiday budget with an example spreadsheet the author created. I keep our household budget on an excel program and I created a projected budget for completing house projects, but I never thought about creating the same system for holiday expenses. Perhaps this is because I don't have a regular list of expenses. We have a fake tree, we don't buy a lot of gifts for ourselves or the kids (the oldest is 2 years old) and I don't buy extra decorations until after the holidays when they are clearanced at 75%. Sometimes the best deals come around the holiday, like Glen Ivy Day Spa gift cards, $75 for $100. So I tend to stock up for the year (as presents for the holidays or special occasions like birthdays and mother's day). We only buy presents for our close family and a few friends. This year I am also making presents like flannel pajama bottoms, jam, jewelry, and decorative ornaments. So I am hoping to make the holidays more affordable and special by making my own crafts (although finding the time with 2 kids might be the real holiday challenge for me). However, since I signed up for the holiday boot camp, I will attempt to create a spreadsheet anyway.
Nov 21 (my youngest is 7mo old today!)
Camp was supposed to start Nov 15, but I never got an email like I thought I would. So I grabbed a couple of minutes today and looked "boot camp" on mommysavers.com and found some postings. We are supposed to create a holiday budget with an example spreadsheet the author created. I keep our household budget on an excel program and I created a projected budget for completing house projects, but I never thought about creating the same system for holiday expenses. Perhaps this is because I don't have a regular list of expenses. We have a fake tree, we don't buy a lot of gifts for ourselves or the kids (the oldest is 2 years old) and I don't buy extra decorations until after the holidays when they are clearanced at 75%. Sometimes the best deals come around the holiday, like Glen Ivy Day Spa gift cards, $75 for $100. So I tend to stock up for the year (as presents for the holidays or special occasions like birthdays and mother's day). We only buy presents for our close family and a few friends. This year I am also making presents like flannel pajama bottoms, jam, jewelry, and decorative ornaments. So I am hoping to make the holidays more affordable and special by making my own crafts (although finding the time with 2 kids might be the real holiday challenge for me). However, since I signed up for the holiday boot camp, I will attempt to create a spreadsheet anyway.
Waiting for Superman? Not so Much.
"Waiting for Superman" presents a very biased view of education and charter schools. A colleague presented this article to me which shows a more neutral explanation of what's happening in education and what "Waiting for Superman" is not showing us.
Ordinarily, documentaries about education attract little attention, and seldom, if ever, reach neighborhood movie theaters. Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for “Superman” is different. It arrived in late September with the biggest publicity splash I have ever seen for a documentary. Not only was it the subject of major stories in Time and New York, but it was featured twice on The Oprah Winfrey Show and was the centerpiece of several days of programming by NBC, including an interview with President Obama.
Two other films expounding the same arguments—The Lottery and The Cartel—were released in the late spring, but they received far less attention than Guggenheim’s film. His reputation as the director of the Academy Award–winning An Inconvenient Truth, about global warming, contributed to the anticipation surrounding Waiting for “Superman,” but the media frenzy suggested something more. Guggenheim presents the popularized version of an account of American public education that is promoted by some of the nation’s most powerful figures and institutions.
The message of these films has become alarmingly familiar: American public education is a failed enterprise. The problem is not money. Public schools already spend too much. Test scores are low because there are so many bad teachers, whose jobs are protected by powerful unions. Students drop out because the schools fail them, but they could accomplish practically anything if they were saved from bad teachers. They would get higher test scores if schools could fire more bad teachers and pay more to good ones. The only hope for the future of our society, especially for poor black and Hispanic children, is escape from public schools, especially to charter schools, which are mostly funded by the government but controlled by private organizations, many of them operating to make a profit.
The Cartel maintains that we must not only create more charter schools, but provide vouchers so that children can flee incompetent public schools and attend private schools. There, we are led to believe, teachers will be caring and highly skilled (unlike the lazy dullards in public schools); the schools will have high expectations and test scores will soar; and all children will succeed academically, regardless of their circumstances. The Lottery echoes the main story line of Waiting for “Superman”: it is about children who are desperate to avoid the New York City public schools and eager to win a spot in a shiny new charter school in Harlem.
The movie asserts a central thesis in today’s school reform discussion: the idea that teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement. But this proposition is false. Hanushek has released studies showing that teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20 percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.
But the same body of research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens.
Guggenheim skirts the issue of poverty by showing only families that are intact and dedicated to helping their children succeed. One of the children he follows is raised by a doting grandmother; two have single mothers who are relentless in seeking better education for them; two of them live with a mother and father. Nothing is said about children whose families are not available, for whatever reason, to support them, or about children who are homeless, or children with special needs. Nor is there any reference to the many charter schools that enroll disproportionately small numbers of children who are English-language learners or have disabilities.
The film never acknowledges that charter schools were created mainly at the instigation of Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers from 1974 to 1997. Shanker had the idea in 1988 that a group of public school teachers would ask their colleagues for permission to create a small school that would focus on the neediest students, those who had dropped out and those who were disengaged from school and likely to drop out. He sold the idea as a way to open schools that would collaborate with public schools and help motivate disengaged students. In 1993, Shanker turned against the charter school idea when he realized that for-profit organizations saw it as a business opportunity and were advancing an agenda of school privatization. Michelle Rhee gained her teaching experience in Baltimore as an employee of Education Alternatives, Inc., one of the first of the for-profit operations.
It bears mentioning that nations with high-performing school systems—whether Korea, Singapore, Finland, or Japan—have succeeded not by privatizing their schools or closing those with low scores, but by strengthening the education profession. They also have less poverty than we do. Fewer than 5 percent of children in Finland live in poverty, as compared to 20 percent in the United States. Those who insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that only teachers matter, prefer to ignore such contrasts.
If we are serious about improving our schools, we will take steps to improve our teacher force, as Finland and other nations have done. That would mean better screening to select the best candidates, higher salaries, better support and mentoring systems, and better working conditions. Guggenheim complains that only one in 2,500 teachers loses his or her teaching certificate, but fails to mention that 50 percent of those who enter teaching leave within five years, mostly because of poor working conditions, lack of adequate resources, and the stress of dealing with difficult children and disrespectful parents. Some who leave “fire themselves”; others were fired before they got tenure. We should also insist that only highly experienced teachers become principals (the “head teacher” in the school), not retired businessmen and military personnel. Every school should have a curriculum that includes a full range of studies, not just basic skills. And if we really are intent on school improvement, we must reduce the appalling rates of child poverty that impede success in school and in life.
There is a clash of ideas occurring in education right now between those who believe that public education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service, akin to the public provision of police, fire protection, parks, and public libraries, and those who believe that the private sector is always superior to the public sector. Waiting for “Superman” is a powerful weapon on behalf of those championing the “free market” and privatization. It raises important questions, but all of the answers it offers require a transfer of public funds to the private sector. The stock market crash of 2008 should suffice to remind us that the managers of the private sector do not have a monopoly on success.
Ordinarily, documentaries about education attract little attention, and seldom, if ever, reach neighborhood movie theaters. Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for “Superman” is different. It arrived in late September with the biggest publicity splash I have ever seen for a documentary. Not only was it the subject of major stories in Time and New York, but it was featured twice on The Oprah Winfrey Show and was the centerpiece of several days of programming by NBC, including an interview with President Obama.
Two other films expounding the same arguments—The Lottery and The Cartel—were released in the late spring, but they received far less attention than Guggenheim’s film. His reputation as the director of the Academy Award–winning An Inconvenient Truth, about global warming, contributed to the anticipation surrounding Waiting for “Superman,” but the media frenzy suggested something more. Guggenheim presents the popularized version of an account of American public education that is promoted by some of the nation’s most powerful figures and institutions.
The message of these films has become alarmingly familiar: American public education is a failed enterprise. The problem is not money. Public schools already spend too much. Test scores are low because there are so many bad teachers, whose jobs are protected by powerful unions. Students drop out because the schools fail them, but they could accomplish practically anything if they were saved from bad teachers. They would get higher test scores if schools could fire more bad teachers and pay more to good ones. The only hope for the future of our society, especially for poor black and Hispanic children, is escape from public schools, especially to charter schools, which are mostly funded by the government but controlled by private organizations, many of them operating to make a profit.
The Cartel maintains that we must not only create more charter schools, but provide vouchers so that children can flee incompetent public schools and attend private schools. There, we are led to believe, teachers will be caring and highly skilled (unlike the lazy dullards in public schools); the schools will have high expectations and test scores will soar; and all children will succeed academically, regardless of their circumstances. The Lottery echoes the main story line of Waiting for “Superman”: it is about children who are desperate to avoid the New York City public schools and eager to win a spot in a shiny new charter school in Harlem.
The movie asserts a central thesis in today’s school reform discussion: the idea that teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement. But this proposition is false. Hanushek has released studies showing that teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20 percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.
But the same body of research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens.
Guggenheim skirts the issue of poverty by showing only families that are intact and dedicated to helping their children succeed. One of the children he follows is raised by a doting grandmother; two have single mothers who are relentless in seeking better education for them; two of them live with a mother and father. Nothing is said about children whose families are not available, for whatever reason, to support them, or about children who are homeless, or children with special needs. Nor is there any reference to the many charter schools that enroll disproportionately small numbers of children who are English-language learners or have disabilities.
The film never acknowledges that charter schools were created mainly at the instigation of Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers from 1974 to 1997. Shanker had the idea in 1988 that a group of public school teachers would ask their colleagues for permission to create a small school that would focus on the neediest students, those who had dropped out and those who were disengaged from school and likely to drop out. He sold the idea as a way to open schools that would collaborate with public schools and help motivate disengaged students. In 1993, Shanker turned against the charter school idea when he realized that for-profit organizations saw it as a business opportunity and were advancing an agenda of school privatization. Michelle Rhee gained her teaching experience in Baltimore as an employee of Education Alternatives, Inc., one of the first of the for-profit operations.
It bears mentioning that nations with high-performing school systems—whether Korea, Singapore, Finland, or Japan—have succeeded not by privatizing their schools or closing those with low scores, but by strengthening the education profession. They also have less poverty than we do. Fewer than 5 percent of children in Finland live in poverty, as compared to 20 percent in the United States. Those who insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that only teachers matter, prefer to ignore such contrasts.
If we are serious about improving our schools, we will take steps to improve our teacher force, as Finland and other nations have done. That would mean better screening to select the best candidates, higher salaries, better support and mentoring systems, and better working conditions. Guggenheim complains that only one in 2,500 teachers loses his or her teaching certificate, but fails to mention that 50 percent of those who enter teaching leave within five years, mostly because of poor working conditions, lack of adequate resources, and the stress of dealing with difficult children and disrespectful parents. Some who leave “fire themselves”; others were fired before they got tenure. We should also insist that only highly experienced teachers become principals (the “head teacher” in the school), not retired businessmen and military personnel. Every school should have a curriculum that includes a full range of studies, not just basic skills. And if we really are intent on school improvement, we must reduce the appalling rates of child poverty that impede success in school and in life.
There is a clash of ideas occurring in education right now between those who believe that public education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service, akin to the public provision of police, fire protection, parks, and public libraries, and those who believe that the private sector is always superior to the public sector. Waiting for “Superman” is a powerful weapon on behalf of those championing the “free market” and privatization. It raises important questions, but all of the answers it offers require a transfer of public funds to the private sector. The stock market crash of 2008 should suffice to remind us that the managers of the private sector do not have a monopoly on success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)