conuly

First off, the Rotenberg Center is in the news again.

And one on the potential advantages of being autistic

Here's one about how trauma might alter your DNA. Sounds like Lamarck has gotten a worse rap than he deserved.

Here's an article about how prozac isn't actually more effective than a placebo. I haven't read it - I misplaced my original link, so I googled for it and this is what came up.

And finally, a LONG article about the morality of babies.

( Read more... )

As always, read the comments to the articles at your own risk.

who is wielding a machete. A machete? WTF?

And here is the article I got that link from! Apparently, developmental milestones are flexible.

Why Teenagers Are Growing Up So Slowly Today

Teens Who Feel More Peer Pressure Turn Out Better, Not Worse

Don't Shelter Your Children: Coping With Stress As A Child Develops Resilience And Emotion Regulation As An Adult

Children’s Work and Play

Got at least one of them over at FreeRange Kids.

We were walking, and I bumped her. As I bumped her, I said "Excuse me", to which she replied "You're welcome". Well, she said more like "Do welcome", which she doesn't do anymore :( I tried asking her today so I could get the pronunciation just right, but now she says it right, like a big girl. (That was the only place she didn't say "your" the way she was supposed to.)

Me: I'm welcome? Huh? I said Excuse Me!
Evangeline: *giggles* I'm sorry.
Me: It's all right. I'm sorry, I bumped into you!
Evangeline: I said you're welcome. I say that when you say... when you say...
Me: Thank you?
Evangeline: Thank you. I say you're welcome when you say thank you. Thank you! You're welcome!
Evangeline: Thank you, you're welcome, thank you, you're welcome.
Me: Yep.
Evangeline: You said sorry. Say sorry, Connie.
Me: Sorry?
Evangeline: It's okay. Sorry, it's okay, sorry, it's okay, sorry, it's okay.

I'm glad she has a grasp of the basic manners she's been learning for the past 4 years.

Today, she was speaking and I noticed that she said "nothing" like "nussing". Intrigued, I started bombarding her with say-this, coming up with all the words with th- in them I could (and making a few up). I alternated between voiced and unvoiced, but the pattern I eventually heard (before she got bored) was consistent... so if the unvoiced becomes -s, the voiced becomes -z and so on.

Th at the start of a word (this, then) becomes a stop (dis, den). Th between vowels becomes an alveolar fricative (nothing becomes nussing, mouthing with a voiced th becomes mouzing) unless it's before -er (or probably -ar, I have try that out!) (and she still turns -er into -or most of the time, which yes, does problems with the word "her"!) in which case it becomes a stop (mother becomes mudder). Th at the end of the word is a bilabial fricative (teeth becomes teef, bathe becomes bave). There's a few exceptions (anything becomes anyting... though it's possible she's thinking of it as any + thing, two words, which makes sense because thing is usually ting, that's why nussing caught my ear), but it seems pretty consistent, although I really have to start listening better instead of waiting for a quiet moment and pouncing.

As near as I can tell, she's essentially covered all her bases with regard to this weird th thing, except for the correct one! She knows how to make a th, I explicitly taught her one day when I was bored, she just doesn't unless I sit her down and exaggeratedly do it first and ask her to copy me. And I don't expect her to do it when talking either, it's one of the lastest sounds kids learn, isn't it?

Ana now has all her cursive lowercase letters down. I really didn't want to tackle z, it being a difficult and uncommon letter that looks nothing like its print form (apparently, it comes from the medieval form of the letter), but I built it up to her by saying that it's worth learning because it's fun to do, so she took to it relatively well. Today we wrote the week's sight words in cursive, and I wrote out a sentence for her to read. I think we'll just try for a word a day for next week, and then I'll teach her capitals.

Clicky

In the comments, the very first comment is of the sort that really gets me - somebody implying that the only learning that counts as "learning" is the sort you do sitting in a chair that you can be tested on. Tying your shoes isn't learning, I suppose. Dealing with complex social situations isn't learning. Only math and reading are learning - and probably only if taught the way she thinks of as appropriate. Bah.

( Read more... )

Incidentally, on the subject of homework - Ten minutes, per grade, per night. The National PTA and the National Education Association can be assumed to know something on this subject.

Here's one on the school whose kids had an amazing Lego city
And a reaction to said article, which I've never seen before.

And one, two, three articles I just got from FreeRangeKids. I'll crosspost that last article and then take on some of the comments in a bit. The comments are mostly decent, but that's because the NYTimes requires comments to be approved first.

( Read more... )

Swing becomes fing. Sweep becomes feep. Switzerland becomes Fitzeryan.

Yesterday, she asked me if I could "s'ing" her. After I confirmed that she meant swing I asked, in dismay, if she could say sweep, could say swallow, could say Switzerland. "S'eep, s'a-yo, S'itzeryan."

I suppose this is a step forward, but I didn't want her to step forward! I wanted her to keep being the cute little kid who cutely asked me to fing her!

I've lately heard her saying "lollipop" instead of "yayipop" and "byoo" or "blue" instead of "b'ue", and - tragedy of tragedies! - "beyieve" instead of "abeev".

She clearly hasn't read and understood the memo: SHE IS NOT ALLOWED TO GET ANY OLDER. I tell her that, every day, but she laughs! She seems to think - and has even said as much! - that just because she "can't help it" that's an excuse for growing up! Not on my watch.

I'm reading through the comments now.

It's a pity some of the examples chosen are so... weird, like the kid who peed in the friend's yard and whose mother was surprised he wasn't invited back.

( Read more... )

There's a wide range of comments, but there are a few that keep coming up that I wanna reply to. (Alas, comments appear to be closed now, so I can't do so there.)

1. There's the "I don't want to sit where your kid's (potty-trained) naked butt has been" argument. This makes a lot of sense as a personal squick, but as a rational "because of germs" argument it fails. If your pants and underpants can't prevent the terrible germs from eating you from the bottom, why would the kid's pants and underpants have prevented the germs from getting on the seat in the first place??? Unless you're both naked on the same seat, in which case you're being a little hypocritical. (And it's not like kids are bastions of hygiene anyway. I'm more worried about sitting where their hands have been than their butts!)

I can only assume these are the people who, uh, sprinkle when they tinkle.

2. There's the "OMG! Pedophile! They'll hurt your kids!" argument which makes some more sense... except where it doesn't.

For most people, nudity is less alluring than a certain type of clothing. I don't know, I guess pedophiles could be different, but I suspect that most of them would also be more attracted to clothed kids (especially in, say, "grown-up" outfits that are vaguely sexualized) than naked ones.

2a. There's also the "I don't want pedophiles seeing my kids and not going near them!" argument, which is another one that works as a personal squick (and one I wouldn't argue with) but that probably doesn't harm the kid at all. I can only repeat my earlier argument and say that if they're getting off watching your kid, they're probably doing it no matter what your child is wearing. (Best not to think about it too much.)

3. There's the "If you don't clothe them fully from the time they're born, they'll never learn social norms!" argument, which is just nonsensical. We all learn things as we get older. (And just because somebody allows their child more freedom in this area does not mean that they never discipline their child. Logic, plz.)

4. And there's one more pedophile argument (we sure do have a lot of them) which runs "If you don't make them wear clothes, they'll have no idea something is wrong if an adult tries to harm them!"

That also makes no sense. Surely you can teach a kid about not touching private parts without making them wear clothes inside your own home? Or teach them that it's okay for KIDS to be naked but not grown-ups? Or, if you're a naturalist, teach them that some types of behavior are okay when naked, but not others?