The Pica Perspective

Do Sports Build Character?

According to a recent report, Susan Connor, manager of the injury prevention program at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital in Cleveland, and her team studied the responses of more than 13,000 U.S. high school students who took part in the 2007 Youth Risk Behavioral Study, an assessment of adolescent high-risk behaviors conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For boys, the study found that participation in team sports correlated with an increased likelihood of fighting, drinking and binge drinking. Rates of depression and smoking, however, seemed to decline. The piece below was first posted in October of 2007. But, with the release of this new information, I thought I'd run it again.

It's a given that parents only want the best for their children. And that's one of the reasons they enroll them in organized sports -- often at a very early age; they believe that sports participation builds "character."

People can go on and on, expounding on the many values children supposedly learn by taking part in competitive sports. It's been the conventional wisdom for longer than I've been alive. But the truth is, there's little research to support the theory. There is, however, evidence to the contrary.

Consider this: a 1995 poll of 198 Olympic or aspiring Olympic athletes, reported in Sports Illustrated, showed to what lengths individuals will go to win. Asked if they would take a banned, performance-enhancing substance that would both go undetected and enable them to win, 195 said they would; only three said no. And when asked if they would take such a substance if they wouldn't get caught, they would win every competition entered for five years, and then die from the substance's side effects, more than half of the athletes said yes!

But, you may be thinking, those were athletes whose lives had revolved around winning for many years; they're probably an exception to the rule.

Maybe, but the attitude had to begin sometime and grow from there, as this story indicates: a survey of 965 students at four middle schools in Massachusetts found that almost 3% of the children were using anabolic steroids to enhance their appearance and performance. From where do children as young as 10 learn such skewed priorities?

Other research shows that long-term participation in sports results in the display of less sportsmanship and more aggressive behavior -- and that even if athletes learn some prosocial behaviors on the field, they rarely transfer them to other areas of their lives. Studies have also demonstrated that competitive children are both less generous and less empathetic than others.

Most recently, the Josephson Institute of Ethics released a report on the impact of high school sports on the values and ethics of student athletes. Here's part of what it found:

• Boys who play baseball, football, and basketball are more likely to cheat on the field and in school.
• Nearly half of the baseball and football players saw nothing wrong with using a playbook stolen from a rival team.
• A high percentage of both male and female athletes thought it was okay for a coach to tell a player to fake an injury.
• About half of all baseball players thought it was okay for a coach to tell a pitcher to throw at the opposing batter.

Still, people continue to believe that sports participation builds character. But is that the kind of "character" we want our children to grow up with?

Do You Say "No" to Your Children?

When I was a kid, my parents frequently said "no" to me. "No" meant "no," and if I questioned it, I got "the look" -- you know, the one that can silence a kid fast. Did it have a negative impact on me? Not so I can tell, but then there's no way to be certain I wouldn't have turned out significantly different if my parents had offered me an explanation every time they responded in the negative...

Back then, parents didn't think twice about saying no. That's not the case today. Whether it's in response to a child's request for candy, or to a child behaving badly, today's parents are terrified that they'll somehow warp their child for life if they use the word. One young mom even told me that she never said no to her 4-year-old son because she didn't want to stifle his creativity! (OK.) And, of course, early childhood professionals are fearful of saying no to the children in their care because they might bring down the wrath of the children's parents on their heads.

In this week's featured interview on Body, Mind and Child two experts tackle this delicate issue, seeking to help parents and educators find the balance between being too restrictive and too permissive. Weighing in on the issue is Dr. Cary S. Chugh, a clinical child psychologist known for his innovative approach to discipline with children. His new book is Don't Swear with Your Mouth Full! The second guest, Cynthia G. Whitham, L.C.S.W., is Associate Director of the UCLA Parenting & Children’s Friendship Program. Whitham has been training parents for over 20 years and is the author of The Answer is NO: Saying It & Sticking to It.

Where Dr. Cary says that “no” should rarely be used and that, when used, should be accompanied with an explanation of why, Cynthia Whitham believes there are times when parents need to simply say no without an explanation.

“There are times you do just say no. A lot of times parents are asking me, if you don’t explain they won’t know that it’s wrong. I think a lot of time children are choosing to do things knowing that they’re wrong, knowing that it will make their parents mad,” said Whitham. 

Take a listen (click on the Parents Channel tab at www.bamradionetwork) and let me know your thoughts!

Making Physical Activity Feel Good

Eva Desca Garnet, author of Movement Is Life, wrote: "Our biological need for movement is ensured by the sensation of pleasure in movement." In other words, if it feels good we're much more likely to want to do it!

Well, some very clever people in Sweden have come up with a way to make taking the stairs feel good! Watch...

When Should Children Start Formal Schooling?

The trend in this country is to begin formal schooling at younger and younger ages. It's all part of what I call the earlier-is-better syndrome: giving children a "jumpstart" on life and "success." But a new international study conducted by Cambridge University has determined that children should not start

school until at least age 6. Before that, the findings contend, children are not socially, emotionally, or developmentally ready to contend with the rigors of a curriculum.

Amen to that.

It won't come as any surprise to you that my favorite recommendation is that children under age 6 engage in a year of play-based learning before they start school.

Cambridge Primary Review co-author and chairwoman Gillian Pugh said forcing subject-based learning onto four-year-olds could affect their confidence.

"They are not going to learn to read, write and add up if you have alienated children by the age of four and five,'' she said. "If they are already failing by age four-and-a-half or five, then it's going to be quite difficult to get them back into the system again.''

And it will be darn hard, if not impossible, to reignite the love of learning they were born with.

Most European children don't start school until they turn six and in Sweden, Poland and Finland, the country that's number-one in the world in literacy and numeracy, they begin at age seven. 

'Nuff said?

Diabetes Awareness Month

November is Diabetes Awareness Month -- which makes it the perfect time to point out a few facts...

• Type 2 diabetes was formerly known as adult-onset diabetes because it was previously unheard of among the young.
  
• Type 2 diabetes is now seen in record numbers among the young; in fact the incidence of Type 2 diabetes has nearly doubled over the last two decades.
  
• A couple of years ago, the Centers for Disease Control study indicated that American children born in the year 2000 face a one-in-three chance of developing Type 2 diabetes.
  
• Early onset of diabetes will most likely mean its complications also begin earlier in life. When adults develop Type 2 diabetes, they suffer complications at about age 50; children with Type 2 diabetes can expect to see complications at about age 20.
  
• We currently spend approximately $96 billion annually treating diabetes in the United States, mostly due to its complications.
  
• Diabetes is one of the major health risks of overweight and obesity.
  
• The risk of developing diabetes is reduced by regular physical activity!
  
  
  

What's Best for Our Children? - The Next 20 Years

Am passing along this message from Fair Play for Children...

On 20th November this year, the seminal treaty on children, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, reaches its Twentieth Annivesary, the date on which in 1989, the United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention and to open it for ratification by Member States.

 

Fair Play for Children, founded in 1972 by leading rights campaigner, Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, is now founded on Article 31 of the Convention, the Right to Play, Rest and Recreation, and to share fully in Culture.   This Right does not exist in isolation, of course - e.g. Right to Child Care, Right to Health, Rights to Non-discrimination, Non-exploitation, Freedom of Association, To be heard etc

 

Leading up to the Anniversary Date, Fair Play is issuing a Challenge:

 

For Readers to tell us 5 things they would like to see achieved in the next 20 years for all Children. 

 

We ask that they contact us at:  playaction@fairplayforchildren.net

 

and tell us:

• one thing they would like their national Government to do for Children's Play
• one thing they would like their national Government to do for Children's Rights
• one thing they would like their local/municipal authority to do for Children's Play
• one thing they would like their local/municipal authority to do for Children's Rights
• one thing they would like to see all Governments do for All Children worldwide

over the next 20 years.

 

We'd ask they do this by 15th November so that Fair Play can email:

• Governments
• UK Local Councils

and others in time for 20th November 2009.

 

We also ask that people replying indicate their age and country.  No names needed.

 

Our website is www.fairplayforchildren.org  and a reply can be left there also.

Please do add your voice to this cause!

The Baby Einstein Refund

Have you heard that Disney, owners of the very lucrative Baby Einstein brand, has offered a refund to parents who purchased Baby Einstein videos before 2004, when the company was still claiming they boosted babies' brain power? I'd be surprised if you haven't heard; it's all over the place!

Here's what the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood had to say in its latest correspondence:

Our successful campaign to persuade Disney to give refunds to parents who purchased Baby Einstein videos has become a huge international story.  Media coverage includes a front page story in The New York Times ("No Genius in Your Crib?  Get a Refund"); stories on Good Morning America and the CBS Evening News; and articles in hundreds of newspapers throughout the United States and Canada.  Parents in other countries are now demanding their money back.

And thanks to you, the story has gone viral.  You've written about the refund and CCFC's success all over Twitter and Facebook.  Screen time for babies and Disney's deceptive marketing has become the hot topic on parenting blogs and listservs.  And pediatricians are planning to distribute information about the refunds in their offices.

The take away message?  Baby Einstein DVDs are not educational.  The New York Times called the refunds "a tacit admission that [Baby Einstein] did not increase infant intellect."  Now parents will be able to rely on honest information and solid research - not marketing hype - when making important decisions about if and when to let their youngest and most vulnerable children watch screen media. As one mom told us, "It's great that parents will now have one less thing to worry about.  No longer will they feel the pressure to have their babies watch so-called educational videos or risk falling behind."

I have a number of different thoughts about this whole thing. For example, Disney offered the refund after lawsuits challenged the educational claims of the DVDs; but they probably didn't expect the stir it would cause. I wonder if they would have offered if they'd known how much publicity it would garner. They've recently responded by saying the refund offer is part of its regular customer satisfaction plan, but as far as responses go that seems pretty weak.

I wonder, too, about the parents asking for a refund. Are they doing it to make the point that big companies can no longer use deception on consumers? Or have they looked at their little one's "intellect" and found it "lacking?" What were their expectations when they purchased the DVDs?

Don't you find that mom's comment interesting -- that now parents will have one less thing to worry about? I understand that there's no one easier to scare than a parent. After all, there's so much at stake in raising a child! But whatever happened to critical thinking? To listening to your instincts and standing your ground in the midst of surrounding insanity?

I hope that when the next "big thing" comes along with promises of better brains and brighter futures, parents will balk at the claims. That they'll do a little research or, even better, trust their inner wisdom over the contentions of commercial enterprises looking to line their pockets.

In the meantime, if you purchased a Baby Einstein DVD before 2004 and want a refund, click here!

Angry Australians & 10 Things Your Preschool Won't Tell You

Last week I told you that, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, an Australian group had recommended a ban on TV for children under 2. Apparently this report also claims that exposure to television at a young age can shorten a child's attention span and stunt language development. Hmmm. Seems like we've heard that one before, too.

Well, the Australians don't like it any more than most parents here did. In fact, many experts dispute those findings, saying the exact opposite is true -- that TV time can actually be beneficial for children.

Whom to believe? Whether or not they believed the findings of similar studies in this country, the majority of parents have chosen to ignore the AAP recommendations. I suspect Australian parents will similarly ignore what they don't want to hear.

In other news, a new book called 1,001 Things They Won't Tell You: An Insider's Guide to Spending, Saving, and Living Wisely by Jonathan Dahl and the editors of SmartMoney, offers a list of 10 things your preschool won't tell you. It's pretty interesting. Following is the list. If you want to read the comments under each, click here!

1. “Sure, we're licensed, but that doesn't mean we're any good.”

2. “Bus drivers make more than our teachers.”

3. “Learning the ABC s won't prepare your tot for kindergarten.”

4. “Discipline's not our forte.”

5. "Separation anxiety? Never gave it much thought.”

6. “Get ready to work overtime.”

7. “We serve more junk food than McDonald's.”

8. “We're harder to get into than Harvard.”

9. “Our pricey tuition is just the start.”

10. “We don't always follow our own education philosophy.”

Hmmm...

"Don't Talk to Strangers": Helpful or Harmful Message?

Have you ever smiled at a child in the grocery store, only to have them look at you in terror -- as though you were going to snatch them from the cart? If so, chances are good that child has been told -- probably forcefully and repeatedly -- not to talk to strangers.

Lenore Skenazy says "Don't talk to strangers" is one of the most useless pieces of advice ever foisted on us to foist on children. Lenore, author of Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had without Going Nuts with Worry, and one of my two guests on this week's featured BAM interview, believes it gives children the wrong message: that anyone they don't know is a stranger and not to be trusted. This, she says, not only instills fear in children; also it leaves them without options when there is actual stranger danger. Debbie Johnston, Vice President of Instruction and Partnerships at ChildCare Education Institute, strongly believes that parents and early childhood professionals must warn children about stranger danger.

What do you think? We live in a culture of fear, but is there justification for all the fear we're fed? Lenore, along with such experts as noted educator David Elkind and social historian Peter Stearns, says no. Freda Briggs, a professor emeritus in child development at the University of South Australia, contends that stranger danger is a myth. In Australia, for example, the odds of a child under 15 being murdered by a stranger are in the vicinity of one in 4 million. And according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics on violent crimes, between 1973 and 2002, out of every thousand children kidnapped, just one or two of them were abducted by strangers. As Lenore points out in the interview, driving in a car with mom is more likely than strangers to cause a child harm.

Admittedly, if I had young children, I'd probably follow them everywhere, hiding behind the bushes so they wouldn't know I was there. Heck, I might hide behind the bushes until they were driving. But I'd like to believe that common sense would prevail and I'd prevent my fears from becoming my children's.

Would I teach them not to talk to strangers? I think I prefer Lenore's suggestion. Listen to this dynamic and compelling interview and then share your opinion!

Toddlers & TV

As you probably already know, the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 recommended that children under the age of 2 watch no television. It caused quite a stir at the time, and I've been told by many parents and experts that few are following the recommendation.

Now comes a similar recommendation from the Australians.

Research by the Royal Melbourne Children's Hospital suggests that children under the age of two should not watch any TV at all. The researchers have written guidelines for the Federal Government as part of the Get Up and Grow guidelines to reduce childhood obesity. They are designed specifically for child care centers but also provide some advice for parents.

Statistics show that four-month-old infants in Australia watch on average 44 minutes of TV each day and children under the age of four with pay TV at home spend at least three hours a day in front of the screen.

A senior lecturer in Child Development at the University of South Australia, Glenn Cuppitt, says the new guidelines are a measure of desperation to encourage children to be active and to interact with others.

"A measure of desperation." Hmmm. When did active and interactive children become so uncommon that we had to resort to desperate measures to get them to move and play together? And, trust me, this is not the case only in Australia!