Active mums have active children

Sometimes I wonder how on earth people managed to get their research funded because it seems so obvious what the answer will be. Today's gem is that active mothers have more active children. But it also comments that for many women, they become less active after having children, and that in modern life there are many competing priorities for time. There is so much evidence that activity, exercise, being out of doors, experiencing more of nature etc are good for children, and I find it a sad paradox that in contrast, modern society seems to want to pull us away from such priorities. I'm glad that as an active home schooling parent that my whole family get to enjoy time together being active!

Who defines 'childhood' anyway?

In the UK (or at least in England, where I currently am living) there is a fair amount of debate about curricula for primary aged children (here, about 4-11). This week, new proposals will introduce a foreign language and more complex mathematical concepts from an earlier age, and whilst this is met by applause from many, there are others who are concerned that it removes the freedom of childhood (unfavourable comparisons being made to Scandinavian countries who start formal education much later) or that it prejudices against those who do not come to school with the basic 'building blocks' of literacy and numeracy concepts in place.

If you read this blog, you know I spend quite a bit of time musing over what makes a 'good' childhood - one which allows the child freedom to discover and explore life at his or her own pace, and to have a delight in learning. Paradoxically, through our home-education child-centred approach, we are doing many of the things proposed in these newer curricula which are suggested to remove childhood freedom. Our boys are thriving as they learn Spanish songs and go to a lesson with a small group once a week. Most of the books they choose from the library are on science (my four year old loves 'experiments') or ancient history. We spend many hours wandering through woodlands, parks and meadows discussing the wildlife - both flora and fauna, the weather and geographical conditions encountered, the history of that part of the country, practicing our numeracy skills by counting different types of flower or bird and adding them together, and generally using each opportunity to build. Am I depriving them? Or rather, is it good to encourage a child to the level of their understanding?

As a young child, I spent many hours bored almost to tears in a classroom setting. My father decided to teach me calculus aged seven, just to see if I could do it. I had no fear. I had no appreciation that this was supposed to be a challenging concept, and mastered it with ease. Now, aged 37 I am attempting to learn some mathematical modelling techniques for the analysis of scientific data, and how I wish I had learnt this as a child. I know I would have mastered it then, whereas now I struggle and my brain feels sluggish.

I think the key is that there cannot be a one size fits all. My own experiences, and those of my boys, are tailored to the individual. You perhaps cannot expect every single five year old to be able to write and debug simple computer programmes. But many can do this. Similarly with foreign language learning, one could argue that in some regions of the country, five year olds are barely fluent in their mother tongue; however it is well established that the best age to start a second language is in early childhood, and I see that borne out in my own children as they sing along to their Spanish CD with little apparent difficulty.

Once more, I see a huge benefit in home education; that the depth, structure and pace can be tailored to the individual child, and to maximise the resources available at that time. And rather than being an academic hot-house of pressured targets and goals, I really believe that there is the freedom to enjoy childhood in all its freedom and fullness.

News: UK childhood 'ends at 12'

I think a common theme among those who home educate is that we want to allow our children to be children. We want them to have a 'real childhood', not to feel the pressures of society, not to lose their enthusiasm and excitement for life, not to quash their imagination. My own childhood was less than ideal in several ways, and I hope and pray that my children have a different experience.

I was slightly taken aback the other day when a relative criticised me for not allowing my children to be children. My three year old had just described how you catch, slaughter and prepare a duck for the oven. I think it was the detail about the oesophagus and liver that was taken objection to. 'There is enough time in the future to learn about anatomy'. Yes, but you should have seen his face light up as he described the snail that was trapped in the oesophagus, or the one in the gizzard. We did not force our boys to learn dry anatomical facts to regale visitors with. Instead, we simply included them in our daily activities, which on the occasion referred to, involved catching, slaughtering and cooking a duck (which had been aptly christened Christmas Dinner some weeks prior).

In contrast, consider this article from the BBC website, describing how many parents consider that childhood is over by the age of 12. Pressures include the need to conform, to fit in, to have a particular appearance, to have certain possessions - yes, exactly the kind of childhood that this relative of mine would much prefer over what we are trying to offer because it is 'normal'. Fitting in, being normal, that is all that seems to matter, even if the person is destroyed in the process.

What can I conclude? I suppose simply that there will always be diametrically opposed views. To perhaps paraphrase the final words of Joshua, 'Choose for yourselves today who you will serve. But as for me and my family, we will serve the Lord' - and that will involve all the outworkings that shape our choices in family life and education.

UK curriculum to be 'slimmed down'

I was reading of how the UK primary and secondary curricula in the state sector are to be 'slimmed down'. I found this quite alarming reading! There has been quite considerable debate recently regarding the best way to provide a good, broad education to all, and this has involved consideration of changing the format of examinations, putting more or less emphasis on course work etc. My concern is that through generally seeking to provide all things to all people, there is regression to the mean, and excellence and individuality may become stifled. I am also often startled by how little people seem to question. Some of my friends seem to accept that if the government makes a proposal, it must be based on good evidence and be in the best interests of their child. Others seem to delegate all responsibility to the schools, and think that if you can get your child in to a 'good' school then that is all that is needed.

These curricula have to be followed by state schools that are not academies. Maybe these are not the type of schools that some of my friends and relatives would accept as 'good', but they are attended by the majority of UK children. The new guidelines seem prescriptive, and from what I have read, are becoming more so. I was slightly alarmed by what seem to be conflicting aims and methods. For example, 'Another aim is "to develop their [children's] love of literature through reading for enjoyment" and to help them "appreciate our rich and varied literary heritage".', but at the same time, there curriculum is becoming more prescriptive regarding what is considered 'essential knowledge' and seems (from my understanding) to be trying to reduce some of this to lists of facts and figures which should be memorised. For example, 'The youngest children, as today, will be taught about key historical figures and from seven, youngsters will be expected to learn a detailed chronological history of Britain, from the Stone Age through to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. In geography, there will be a focus on using maps and learning key geographical features - from capital cities to the world's great rivers.' Of course I may be misjudging and misinterpreting what is proposed to actually take place within classrooms, or the individual flexibility of teachers to make these subjects 'come alive', but to me this was depressing reading.

Once more I have been grateful that we plan on a more interactive style of learning, for example learning important history and geography through biographies and field trips rather than memorisation of lists of dates or world capitals which is what seems to be proposed by the government.

A call to simplicity in parenting

We are spending a week in a cottage on a farm in Scotland. It is beautiful! We have watched incredible sunrises each morning, and ended the days with the sun setting across the plain, light dancing through an old oak tree near the farmhouse, shadows falling across distant mountains. Each morning we have read a Psalm together, and contemplated the incredible intricacy and beauty of God’s creation. Walking through fields of recently harvested oats, we have spent time talking about crops, harvest, food and provision, and also about the parables Jesus spoke which described seeds, crops and harvest. It becomes so visual and tangible for the children as they see these illustrations surrounding them. As we watch the fields of sheep close to the cottage, we discuss all the references in the Bible to Jesus being the Good Shepherd, and the comparisons between flocks of sheep and us, as humans. These are just some of the wonderful lessons which come through as we try to live according to Deuteronomy chapter 6 (especially verses 5-7): ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts.  Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up’.

In contrast to this, there have been some quite alarming adverts we have seen on television. (We don’t own a television, so it is bit of a novelty to us, but also quite an eye-opener). Two adverts have really stunned us. The first challenges parents to make sure their children spend an hour per day being physically active because of the long-term health benefits. The second talked about how regularly communicating and interacting with ones’ child will boost their vocabulary and give them a good start in life. What has stunned us is the need to put such adverts on television. I understand that it is health campaigning, health education, public health, preventative health care, whatever that you might like to call it. But these adverts really are akin to the basic messages of health and hygiene that one might try to assimilate to reach underdeveloped, illiterate rural populations in parts of the developing world. I feel as though this is a recurring theme at the moment as I reflect upon some of the broader issues relating to parenting and education (physical activity and children, long hours of childcare). Another news article relating to these issues is that discussing the potential need to limit the amount of television that children are exposed to. Apparently, the average child aged five has access to ten different screens (such as televisions, computers, computer games etc) around their home, and the average teenager watches six hours of television per day. As interesting as the article itself are the hundreds of reader comments that follow, ranging from those who agree totally on the need to restrict viewing hours, to those who consider this to be fully unrealistic because the television is so much part of their lives and their childrens’ lives.

Why do I comment on this? I suppose it is simply the paradox of a society which views itself as increasingly advanced, developing in all areas, and yet is losing touch with the very basics of family life. On the one hand, parents are encouraged back into work, we strive for low rates of unemployment, stay-at-home parents are perhaps considered quaint, and increasing numbers of educational activities (including television programmes and computer games) are promoted. Yet on the other hand, it is necessary to put adverts on those same screens reminding parents that children need exercise and communication. The Bible calls gives us simple, practical instructions on what is right and best as a model of family life, and these values still hold today. Thinking again about those verses in Deuteronomy, some of this relates to shared activities and shared lives. Walk together (working together, and also enjoying physical activity and exercise), eat together, talk together, discuss things together. Simple, relational activities which our society seems to have rejected, and which now it seems, is realizing are essential. Let’s seek to raise our children in simplicity and instill in them those things which have lasting value. Let’s seek God’s wisdom above all the voices of this world as we prioritise in our family lives. Let’s pray that we can hold fast to what is true, and shine like stars in this world, giving Him great honour.

Physical activity and children

This is another of those posts where I find myself scratching my head and wondering whether the world is going mad. The other day, I posted about what I termed 'day orphanages' and reflected on how our current government promotes things which are ‘in the best interests’ of children, which actually seem to miss the point entirely, and neglect some of the most fundamental needs of childhood. Later that evening, I curled up on the sofa with a leading medical journal, and was stunned by some reports on levels of childhood activity and rising levels of obesity. These findings are summarised in this BBC news article. Basically, their findings show that strategic interventions, after school exercise clubs etc simply do not replace the merits of an old fashioned childhood where children were free to play out of doors for long periods of time and expend energy. Somehow, in a culture which prides itself on high levels of education and understanding, we are taking a huge step backwards when it comes to promoting healthy lifestyles for our children. The irony is that many parents who work extra hours to be able to spend a lot on childcare and extracurricular activities may in fact be storing up a legacy of bad habits and poor future health. 

To quote an editorial in the British Medical Journal, ‘Physically active children are more likely to remain active into adulthood, and maintaining a physically active lifestyle throughout life has considerable health benefits. Current UK guidelines state that all children and adolescents should engage in physical  activity of moderate to vigorous intensity for at least 60 minutes a day. However, recent objective data from the Health Survey for England confirmed that only 33% of boys and 21% of girls currently meet these guidelines, and further research has shown a dramatic drop off in activity levels from childhood to adolescence. Thus developing effective interventions to promote physical activity in children is crucial’. The article concludes, ‘Because a wealth of evidence supports the association between an active lifestyle and many facets of child health, it is essential that funders support research from multidisciplinary teams that seek to study which sustainable environmental and policy changes result in long term increases in physical activity and reductions in sedentary time.’ 

Hello? Basically increasing numbers of research studies have shown that we are setting up a generation of children with long term health problems relating to obesity and physical inactivity, and thus we need to invest large amounts of time and effort into developing interventions which promote activity in childhood and active lifestyles. Am I being far too simplistic in suggesting that children are simply encouraged to play outside, and have restricted access to sedentary activities such as computer based games and television? (Touch of irony, I know that there are reasons for the change in culture, but how many of these are excuses?) Many of my friends and family think we are strange for the amount of time we spend out of doors, and are slightly astonished by the distances walked by our children from a young age. It can actually be discouraging - I touched on this very issue in an early post on this blog, where I considered how as parents we need to prayerfully make choices and decisions regarding raising our children, and to be fully persuaded in our own minds, rather than tossed to and fro by the wisdom of this age. The combined experience of walking past the infant school and then reading these medical articles encouraged me that some of our choices are indeed wise and best!

Again, overlapping with previous recent posts, Charlotte Mason had  a lot of wisdom in this area. She thought that a key component of childhood development involved spending as much time as possible out of doors up until the age of about six or seven, after which, outdoor activities remained prominent. This time should be spent exploring nature, learning to really celebrate God’s manifold creation and engaging in imaginative play; this can often be followed by related art or craft activities to consolidate the learning (I have recently been enjoying watching my boys painting using ‘autumn colours’ and discovering the diverse shades which can be produced by mixing the primary colours of red and yellow – often inspired by a morning in the park). Whilst out of doors, children are simply being active. Not activity for the sake of exercise, but developing the good habits of an active lifestyle. 

It makes me sad when I see intelligent, well-educated parents making choices which are so unhelpful to their childrens’ development. It flabbergasts me that in a so called highly developed nation, there is a call for concerted efforts to find solutions to the epidemic of obesity and its consequences in our children.

News article: Children benefit from paternal involvement

I keep an eye on news articles relating to family life and education, and this was one from the BBC several days ago, regarding the role of fathers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18900474

The article reports a study showing that children whose father’s interact well with them at three months of age have better behaviour at 12 months. (It should be commented that this is based on a questionnaire regarding elements of behaviour such as sleep, feeding etc; it is susceptible to bias since what one parent considers a problem, another may view as completely normal. Also, I know I find the more challenging elements of parenting are greatly alleviated through having a supportive and involved husband; I often reflect on how a single parent must feel the task is relentless at times, and through exhaustion and isolation may cope less well with certain behaviours).

What astonishes me is firstly that such studies can attract research funding in the first place, and secondly, that the findings are considered newsworthy. Why is it surprising that children with fathers who interact with them and who take an interest in their development tend to do better? Why do we need to fund research to demonstrate that children need two parents who have complementary roles, in order to have the best chance of thriving? I find it sad that it is necessary.

On the other hand, perhaps I should not be surprised. How often is it assumed that things relating to raising children are the domain of the mother? Even within Christian circles where marriage is highly valued, it is frequently the mother who tends to assume responsibility for the children. One of the most frequently cited sections of the Bible relating to parenting, Ephesians 6 verse 4, is addressed to fathers, ‘And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord’. Elsewhere it is made clear that the God given order for family life is for the husband and father to have a position of headship in the home. ‘Feminists’ react strongly to this suggestion, and object to the verses such as Ephesians 5 verse 22: ‘Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord’. But what they neglect is the parallel command to husbands, three verses later: ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her...’? What does that second verse mean? How did Christ love the church? Christ loved the church sufficiently to face every manner of human abuse and ultimately die for people who at that time, rejected and hate Him. As Jesus Himself said, ‘Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends’. (John 15:13). Given the choice – to submit to my husband’s God-given leadership, or to love another person to the degree that Christ loved the church – I know which seems humanly possible! What does submit mean anyway? I caused controversy among some family members at our wedding when I chose not to say ‘obey’ as is tradition in the Scottish wedding vows, but rather ‘submit’ as I felt this to be more biblically correct. Dictionary definitions of the two verbs are below, with the main difference to me being that submission is a willing surrender, and reflects an respectful attitude of heart, whereas obedience just refers to doing the will of another person.

Obey: 1. To carry out or fulfill the command, order, or instruction of. 2. To carry out or comply with (a command, for example).

Submit: 1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another. 2. To subject to a condition or process.

But perhaps I digress slightly into a discussion of Biblical marriage. Or is it really a digression? It seems clear that many problems arise in modern society as the family structure degenerates and many children are raised in broken homes, perhaps where a succession of other adults come for a time and then leave. Is it surprising that these children may struggle to feel secure, and may find ways (often interpreted as ‘rebellion’ or ‘behavioural problems’) to express their uncertainty?

Of course, practically, it often does make sense for one parent to have the greatest day to day involvement with the children, and the more typical or traditional situation is where the mother remains home, or works part time, whilst the husband works longer and more demanding hours. It is not a question of time spent with the child, but rather the degree of involvement and commitment, and the ultimate responsibility. And alternative approaches are possible; I would love to see more families seriously consider these. My husband and I both work part-time, allowing us each to spend quality time with the children and have an equal, although very different, input into their education. When I say ‘different’, I refer not to our motivations and principles, but rather to the different strengths and weaknesses we both have. We believe our children will benefit from the broader education that we can offer them as a team working in this way. We are considered a little unusual, both in the workplace, and also within the church. But we remember that ultimately we are the ones who will have to give an account before God of how we have raised the children He has given us.

Research: Stay at home mums more anxious and depressed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9381449/Stay-at-home-mothers-more-unhappy-than-those-who-work.html

The above link is to an article in the Telegraph, referring to a study involving 181 mothers of children under 5. It is worth noting that the methodology was an online questionnaire, and that it will have been a self-selecting population (ie those who agree to participate in such a study may reflect those with particularly strong views in one direction or other, so introducing bias).

Additionally, the questions were quite closed, and potentially emotive in nature. For example, 'Parenting is more difficult than working' - how would you answer that? There are days when I would say yes, there are others when I would strongly disagree. It depends on the day you have had at home, and perhaps the circumstances you may have faced whilst working outside the home. And how do you define 'difficult'? Difficult in what way? Mentally taxing? Physically exhausting? Socially isolating? I could criticise other questions in like manner.

I also wonder about some of views communicated more subtly - such as that women may consider the children 'sacred'. Such an extreme term suggests idolatry - that you are elevating your child to the position of a God. It would be no wonder that such parenting is destined to cause stress and constant feelings of failure! But other statements - such as a mother being willing to sacrifice elements of her own health and wellbeing for her children - isn't that part of what parenting is about? This current world seems to want to 'have it all', to have easy results without any real cost. Life is not like that. Having a family is certainly not like that! If people enter into parenthood expecting it to be constantly fulfulling, constantly rewarding, challenging but never really stressful, and not requiring some degree of personal sacrifice, then it does not surprise me that they find themselves weary, disillusioned and possibly slightly depressed after several years. Parenting IS a great challenge, and I wonder whether parents could sometimes simply benefit from others reassuring them that there are some days which are easier and more obviously rewarding than others, and that there will be times when it can simply be tough.

I'd love to know what other readers think about this!

News: UK Schools failing brighter students in mathematics

This report was from the BBC news website yesterday, but is one of several similar I have come across, affecting a range of subjects, not simply maths:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18722137

It does not surprise me that students who are particularly good at a subject are neglected in mainstream schools. There will be many reasons for this:

1) The student: teacher ratio means that a teacher cannot possibly give individual attention to the diverse rates and styles of learning of all the students
2) Emphasis seems to be on getting students to pass with a reasonable grade - therefore those who will already be securing high marks, such as As or Bs will not be seen as the ones to focus on
3) There will always be regression towards the mean - the rate the whole class moves at will be the rate of the average students. This does not just discriminate against the weaker students (who maybe do get a reasonable amount of attention) but also against those who are gifted in an area
4) There is a trend to move away from streaming students according to ability, and this can compound the problem. It should be commented, however, that even in comprehensive schools, there does tend to be streaming for certain subjects such as maths
5) There may be issues regarding peer pressure (read some of the reader comments to the BBC article) such that it is not 'cool' to be academic, and particularly not in subjects such as maths
6) The emphasis on learning can be 'to pass the exam' rather than to gain an in depth appreciation and understanding of a subject. An A* is not perfection, and some students may achieve this with relative ease whilst still not developing to their full potential

When I read articles like this, many of our basic reasons for choosing home education are re-enforced. I am encouraged that we are able to address many of the issues outlined above, and will be able to teach our children at the appropriate rate and in the appropriate depth.

Languages

I read this article on the BBC news website yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18531751

It does not surprise me. Often I feel quite ashamed to be British, and to be so poor at languages. Also, it is simply intuitive that a younger child will learn a language more easily; last year in France, my then two year old mastered basic words and greetings in French, and used them with other children in a swingpark. Friends of mine who are overseas missionaries often tell me how easily their children master the complex sounds and tones of other languages (I am thinking here of some of the Asian languages, where a word can completely change meaning if spoken in the wrong tone).

So really, I need to think more concretely about language learning for my toddlers. The main question that catches me out is, 'Which language?'. In Britain, children tend to be taught French. That has its uses, but would it be the best? I suppose there is also Francophone Africa to consider too... As a family, we believe we will work overseas again in the future, but as yet are unclear about where! If we were still in Africa, or knew where we were heading, the choice of language would be easy. One of the Chinese languages would be an asset, especially with the development of China. Or maybe Spanish, opening up both parts of Europe but also Latin America...

I wonder whether any of you have any thoughts on this? Have you started language learning yet? Which language did you choose and why? Is there a particular curriculum you follow? Thanks for sharing!

Another study in favour of later formal education

This link is from this weekend's Telegraph newspaper. In summary, 'Academics suggested that infants given more time to naturally develop their language skills in the early years had a better foundation when they started conventional tuition at seven.'

Favourable remarks are made about the Steiner method of education, where there is a greater emphasis on play-based activities, including cooking, painting, drama, singing and verbal communication - I think many of these are things which we, as parents educating children of 'pre-school' age seek to spend a lot of our time doing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9289480/Starting-school-at-seven-can-boost-pupils-reading-skills.html

As always, your comments are welcome!

BBC News: Early formal education may be detrimental

The government seems to promote earlier and earlier formal education, yet this recent news story suggests the opposite may well be true. I think many homeschoolers will it encouraging to read of the benefits of allowing young children to progress at their own pace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18084204