10 Phrases We Use That Don't Actually Convey What We Mean (Part 1):

"Take a seat"

Example:  A child just washed his hands and is standing by the table watching the teacher get set up.  She says, "Johnny, please take a seat."

To us it is obvious..."Take a seat" means that you are supposed to sit in your seat.   But when you are three or four (and have only been speaking English for 2 years), this phrase isn't very meaningful.  "Taking" is often an active verb meaning to grab (often referred to as a bad thing in early childhood, like "taking someone's toy"), and a "seat" is used more often to refer to a car seat than a regular chair, at least in my Midwestern dialect.  Often when kids hear things that don't have an obvious visual image, they just dismiss it as noise.  So if you are telling a child to "Take a seat", and they don't change their behavior, don't be surprised.  Rephrase to something more literal, "Sit in your chair" (Sit=active, visual verb and chair=common noun) or "Put your bottom in/on the chair"

 
"Use your words"

Example:  A child screams when another child scoots too close to him.  The teacher sees this and says to the first child, "Johnny, use your words."

This is a phrase started by well-intentioned teachers and parents, usually trying to get a child to use verbal language rather than physical aggression or whining.  Using words as a means of getting what you want or need is a wonderful skill to teach.  The problem is that just saying "Use your words" to kids does not teach them effective or appropriate words to use.  The issue here is twofold.  First, this is an abstract command.  One does not often "use" words.  We more often "say" words.  If a child starts whining and reaching for something you have, and you say "Use your words," what you often mean is "Say some words that tell me exactly what you want."  The second issue is, what "words" is the child supposed to "have" that they now need to recall in this emotionally charged state?  Remember, these children have been English speakers for only a few years, and will still need a lot of help coming up with appropriate and meaningful sentences to communicate their wants and needs.  Rather than using this phrase (catchy as it is) consider saying something like, "Tell him what you want with words" or "say something to him." Regardless of the phrase you use, the important thing is that you follow it with an example of what the child could say.  In this way, we are building the child's functional vocabulary, in addition to helping them handle social situations appropriately.

In the above example, the teacher could say, "Johnny, tell Max what are upset about.  You could tell him, 'Could you please move, you are too close'."  If the child is younger, you may want to shorten this too something like, "Max, say, 'please move back'."

Have American Parents Got It All Backwards?

"Have American Parents Got It All Backwards?"  was posted on the Huffington Post on 5/7/2014.  It highlights 6 concepts that she has seen work in other countries.

-We need to let 3-year-olds climb trees and 5-year-olds use knives.
-Children can go hungry from time-to-time.
-Instead of keeping children satisfied, we need to fuel their feelings of frustration.
-Children should spend less time in school.
-Thou shalt spoil thy baby.
-Children need to feel obligated.    

I love articles like this that get people to think about what they are doing in parenting and early childhood education.  She provides some great points, and while I don't agree with all of her conclusions, it was a fun read and a good conversation starter!

One idea in the article that really interested me is the idea of "American" parenting concepts.  In each section when she presents the above concepts, she challenges the 6 counter "American" parenting concepts.

The idea that the counter concepts are "American" is interesting to me in light of my studies in early childhood education and child development.  Most of these issues have either been acceptable or have been debated hotly in the USA for decades (or centuries).  And many of these practices, for example, letting children use knives and climb trees, were acceptable and normal as recently as my young childhood.  Consider the following two examples:

I hung upside-down and flipped around the bars on my playground equipment at my elementary school for years, then around 4th grade (early 90s), suddenly we couldn't anymore.  Not only was it not ok, it was suddenly and dramatically not ok.  I seem to remember the ONLY time I had to "sit by the wall" outside was for flipping upside-down on the bars.  Not only was I completely unaware of the change in rules, but when I tried to explain that I didn't know, I was greeted with an attitude of "Of course you can't hang upside-down.  You'll land on your head and kill yourself!  That was never ok!"  As if every recess ever before that I had just "gotten away" with this behavior....

From the time my dad was a little kid up until about 2000, my Grandma who lives in Lakewood, CO had a rectangle gymnastics-style trampoline.  Then her home-owners insurance told her they wouldn't insure her with a trampoline on her property.  So away went the trampoline.  40 years of daily use with no, or nearly no injuries, and this fear of reasonable, calculated risks took it away.

Before reading this article, I would have said the American attitude towards this trend, is a frustration with poorly thought out regulations, rules for the sake of convenience and at the expense of real learning, and knee-jerk reactions to cases that are exceptions to the norm.  I would have said that the institutional or governmental attitude was that of eliminating all possible potential risk factors, regardless of the potential benefit.

In considering this discrepancy between what the author, Christine Gross-Loh, and my own general idea of "American," I started wondering about "American" child rearing in general.  I think the diversity of America rendered the idea of a homogenous "American" parenting style impossible.  But more on this later...

Largest Recall of Infant Car Seats

Graco has issued a recall of several of its toddler and infant car seats and booster seats with harnesses.  They say, "harness buckles used on our infant and toddler car seats...are difficult to open."  There have been no reported injuries related to this issue.  The main issue of concern for safety was regarding getting a child out of a seat quickly in an emergency.   Even if your seat isn't part of the recall, you can request a new buckle for free.  Graco also posted instructions to clean the buckle to temporarily fix the issue while waiting for a replacement.

An article from the AP posted on the Chicago Sun-Times website gives a little of the history and the progression of this recall.  The article seems a bit antagonistic to me, especially in light of the original recall notice on the Graco site that was posted before the infant seats were included in the recall.  Seems like everyone is just trying to be safe and reasonable.

Check out your Graco child safety restraining devices for infants or toddlers and see if they are part of the recall. 

To look up any previously recalled item (not just Graco products) including car seats, toys, cribs, etc., you can search for your item on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website.  This is good practice especially if you have purchased second-hand items.  If you purchase new items and register the item with the company, you will be informed in the event of a recall.


Speaking of recalls, check out this recalled toy called the Gilbert U-283 Atomic Energy Lab from the 50's that contained actual Uranium!