Benadryl Bad Parenting

There is certainly no shortage of bad parenting stories these days like this one which recounts the pathetic news of an entire family kicked of a JetBlue flight because the parents were unable to control their children. However, the more disturbing news comes from stories of parents who claim to have no trouble traveling with their children thanks to the shocking, negligent, pathetic, and potentially criminal parenting trick known as the "Benadryl Solution."

Parents are doping their kids with antihistamines to put them to sleep.

Despite my outrage, many people are neither surprised nor bothered by this. For, in a day and age when parents and pediatricians are putting children as young as three years old on medication for hyperactivity, a little benadryl at the airport could seem positively sane. But it's not. And I don't care if your pediatrician recommended it and said it would be OK. And I don't care if Grandpa talks about how they used to put a little bourbon in the baby bottle or rubbed some brandy on the baby's gums. It's not OK. As Helen, an advanced practice nurse specializing in maternal addiction in Philadelphia, sees it, “I think putting a chemical into your child’s brain in lieu of substituting appropriate comforting parenting behaviors is shameful.”
Benadryl is a drug which is manufactured and intended to treat cold and allergy symptoms. It's not intended as a sleep aid or parenting tool, and the box clearly states the product is not to be used for any purpose other than the one for which it was manufactured. It's not enough to simply argue that a little bit won't hurt the child. For one, we don't know that. Stories of such poisoning and abuse are rare but not unheard of. Secondly, the more significant issue is the substitution of dope for adult parenting skills.

My children are ages seven and ten, and my wife and I have always been amazed by people who come up to us while we are traveling - or even out to eat - and note incredulously, "We didn't even realize young children were on this plane" or "in this restaurant." It's as if people are truly shocked that children can behave in public. Barring a true medical condition of hysteria or hyperactivity - for which parents should have a prescription - children should never be doped because a parent can't handle taking them out in public.

Benadryl parenting is no parenting at all. Anyone who has made this decision has clearly revealed an inability to be an adult. And if you're already doing this, please don't have any more children.

Spanking Children and Lower IQs?

According to reports of an extensive study, there are significant residual effects of spanking on children, and chief among them is that children who are spanked have lower IQs. These kinds of reports give me pause.

To begin, I do not believe in spanking children, I have never and would never hit my child, and I feel the act of spanking reflects more on the anger, frustration, and lack of impulse control in parents than it does a parenting tool. However, I challenge any research that it "leads to" or "results in" lower IQs among children.

Perhaps, children who are spanked - or hit - regularly as a disciplinary tool are more likely to come from parents of lower education - and lower IQs. I haven't read the study, but it does not seem to correct for all ranges of socioeconomic and educational - as well as cultural/historical - background of the parents.

My experience has been that spanking is a gut reaction and emotional response of parents. It's not instructional, but punitive. And it more often comes from parents who are less likely to speak to their children in general. Thus, if they don't regularly engage and nurture the behavior of a child, but instead, smack him or her when frustrated, then the child's IQ is going to be negatively affected by the entire parenting experience - or lack thereof.

Spanking is not, in my opinion, parenting. And children who are not parented are going to have lower IQs.

Play Some Games

The holidays already bring a fresh supply of board games to our house, and I love to promote playing games. In fact, the country would be in much better shape if Americans regularly played games as a family, rather than scheduling the occasional "game night" when they turn off the computers, iPads, TVs, and electronic gaming systems. Some of our old stand-bys that we've been able to play since the kids were in pre-school are:

Uno

Cadoo

Mastermind

Apples to Apples

Sorry

Monopoly (with various incarnations and age levels)

Yahtzee

Boggle

Additionally, we have become big fans of games like:

Blokus

Spot-It

Trigger

Yamslam

Who Knew

And we recently added an old favorite with the return of Rummicube.

So get your game on in 2012.

Parenting by Distraction

At my daughter's ballet class, I sat in the lobby while several other parents talked ... and effectively ignored the younger siblings they had brought along to wait while older sister danced. Several of the kids were busy on mom's cell phone, and one parent even complained that a lack of wi-fi or 4G meant there was less the kids could do to pass the time. And then this question from one mom whose child had yet to look up from the iPhone:

"Oh, cell phones. What did we do before then?"

Well, I don't know. I assume we parented. You know, engaged with our children, talked to them, spent time with them. Perhaps we took them for a little walk, or we actually played a game with them. It seems so sad - the people who have little interest in preparing a little to engage their children in a little activity. The same goes every time a car zips past me with a DVD playing for the kids in the back seat. As if the twenty-minute car ride to school or practice or anywhere is terminal if the kid doesn't have SpongeBob to act like a freaking moron in front of him.

Either accept the role of parent seriously ... or make the decision to be self-absorbed in the first place and not burden society with more zoned-out or attention-starved children.

The 8:00 Bedtime

Parents today don't value bedtime enough.

The benefits of getting "enough sleep" are indisputable. From health to grades to attitude and general happiness, we need to get a good night sleep. And our children need it as much as anyone. Thus, my wife and I have always committed to consistent and early bedtimes for our children. And that doesn't change just because the sun is setting later or school is out. OK, it changes a little. But for the most part, my elementary age children are in bed by 8:00 with the lights off during the school year - regardless of weekday or weekend. Come summer, we extend the evening a bit, though they are never up past 9:00.

Children benefit from consistent schedules, and meals and bedtimes are probably the most important. Too many children never know exactly when dinner will be on the table, and bedtime is often whenever they decide to go - often that is after the movie is over. Occasionally, kids in the neighborhood will ask why my children come in and go to bed when it is "still light outside." Interestingly, my kids never ask this. Explaining to other kids that healthy bedtimes are linked to the clock, not the sun, really means nothing to them. But, that's no matter. Ultimately, my kids live rather healthy and happy lives, and my wife and I deal with far less drama from our kids than many I know.

OK, lights out.

Pepper Spray & Eight-Year-Olds

By now, you've probably read about the unruly eight-year-old boy who was pepper sprayed and cuffed by school police officers in a Denver suburb. I know, I'm still trying to get my mind around it as well. Yet, arguably, this story is much more complex than you might initially think.

Everything in my adult/teacher/parent mind tells me that there is no reason to pepper spray an third grader. My son is eight, and short of him having a gun, I can't think of any situation where I couldn't restrain him, even taking away from him a "sharpened stick" like the boy in the story was wielding. Some middle school and high school kids might be reasonable targets for pepper spray or even a taser if they are "threatening school personnel" and "throwing TVs and desks" at a door behind which the teachers had barricaded themselves. But an eight-year-old?

Yet, the district superintendent has defended the action as not only "legal" but in the best interest of the safety of the boy. Police officers are trained to take down the most dangerous and aggressive of people, and there is every reason to think that in restraining and removing the child, he could have ended up with bruises or a broken finger or wrist or arm or a concussion. And we can predict the lawsuits coming from that. In fact, the boy's mother wondered why the police didn't just talk to him as they had done on the two other occasions when they had been called to deal with this child.

And therein lies the complexity.

Clearly, this child is a problem. And previous "talking" may have led to the escalation, as the boy has learned he can get what he wants. The mom - who does not come off well in interviews - has clearly failed in almost every aspect of parenting. And she has burdened her son with issues he will struggle with for years. She claims doctors have refused to medicate him because it's not a medical problem. I agree. It's a parenting problem. And while the boy "never acts that way at home," I'd conclude it's because he gets everything he wants. My guess is the boy comes home each day and sits on the couch for hours watching SpongeBob or playing video games while his mom brings him every bit of junk food his heart desires. I'd guarantee homework is not an expectation in that house.

Thus, the boy was subdued, cuffed, and transferred to an alternative school for behavior disabled schools. Well, that's certainly appropriate, albeit about ten referrals and two police visits too late.

Oh, that we could have some discipline for mom as well.

Muppet Family Fun

My children - ages five and eight - have seen, at most, four or five movies in their lives. Watching movies has simply never been a part of our parenting - as we've always felt the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations on limiting TV/movie viewing makes a lot of sense. Thus, our kids were never parked in front of The Lion King or Finding Nemo when they were younger. The first movie they saw about two years ago was Mary Poppins. After that we added Charlotte's Web, and recently saw Angels in the Outfield and then, one of my favorites, Little Giants. My wife and I have always watched these movies with them, and sometimes we space the viewing out over two nights.

It was a big deal recently when we took our eight-year-old son to the theater for the first time to watch Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows. He has read all the books - twice - and we had seen some scenes from the earlier movies when they were on regular television. Overall, though, movies aren't a significant part of our days. Thus, when we decided to have another movie night this last weekend, we searched for a while before finding a great, and classic, piece of family entertainment. Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie was a truly wonderful movie which is entirely appropriate for young audiences. It was a nice trip down Memory Lane for me and my wife, and it was refreshing to rediscover a movie that doesn't hide innuendo and adult themes in a child's movie just to entertain the adults. The story is simple, sweet, and quite inspiring, and it's quite a treat with all the cameos from famous actors and comedians.

It's definitely worth tuning in just to hear that pleasant and familiar sound of Kermit, plucking away at the banjo and singing:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows, And what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, And rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it, I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Who said that every wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star? Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it,
And look what it's done so far. What's so amazing that keeps us stargazing
And what do we think we might see? Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

... Have you been half asleep? And have you heard voices? I've heard them calling my name.
... Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors?The voice might be one and the same
I've heard it too many times to ignore it, It's something that I'm s'posed to be...
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

Jim Henson was a brilliant man, and The Muppet Movie is truly wholesome family entertainment. It's not a cliche to say "They don't make them like this anymore."

Not Quite Adults

Interesting new book called Not Quite Adults about the latest generation to reach adulthood - or perhaps reach a new definition of adulthood. The book's subtitle is "Why 20-Somethings are Choosing a Slower Path to Adulthood and Why It is Good for Everyone." The book focuses on young people who are delaying marriage, child-rearing, home-ownership, and even careers as they approach adulthood in a more calculating manner. It seems that, at least in the new economy, that boomerang children are not necessarily a problem, and that the image of the slacker living in the basement is far from reality.

Some interesting arguments made by the authors - which are really quite logical - have to do with the rigid paths society has set for defining success and careers and the negative perceptions we have about "involved parents" and "boomerang children." For example, the criticism of "helicopter parents" is misplaced in an era when un-involved disconnected parents do far more harm to their kids and society. As a teacher, I see the wisdom in that. Given a choice between a parent who cares too much or not enough, it seems like a no brainer. Additionally, the stereotype of the slacker kid living off of mom and dad while playing HALO in the basement is not the norm. Many, if not most kids who return home, are instead using the time to not only establish some financial security by paying down debt, but they are helping out mom and dad as well. In many ways, it can be good for a relationship with all parties seeing each other on a more mature level playing field.

Additionally, the authors address a topic dear to my heart - society's misplaced emphasis on bachelor degrees and a diminished appreciation for trades. Society has declared to young people that their only viable options are a high-paying bachelor degree job or "working the line at Arby's." Instead, we need to provide a more honest and realistic portrayal of alternative routes to careers. We have nearly destroyed career and technical education at a time when those areas are where the economy is growing the most and in most need of skilled workers. From health care technicians to electricians and plumbers, the economy is in need of exactly the sort of labor we are turning kids away from. And at a time when half the kids entering college won't finish, this is a nearly unforgivable error.

Wake up, America, and take a realistic look at the world and the young people emerging into adulthood.

Pathetic Parents Doping Kids

The Slacker & Steve Drive Time show on 105.9 Alice in Denver featured a troubling discussion yesterday during one of their "Other People's Problems" segments about parents using OTC drugs such as Benedryl to "quiet" their kids during long flights. It began, as many of their conversations do, with the bachelor Steve advocating this idea and upsetting the parent Slacker who thinks Steve and many adults are simply clueless on what it means to be an adult and a parent. Disturbingly, several callers and comments on their page endorsed the idea, even arguing that they did so on "doctor's recommendations."

This disturbing trend - and discussion - is at the heart of the cultural troubles of America. And it is related to my recent posts about education failures being more about parenting than about schools. The box of Benedryl clearly states DO NOT USE TO MAKE CHILDREN SLEEPY. Anyone who has done so is, in my opinion, shockingly negligent in their roles as adults and parents. And these parents ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is especially disturbing to hear people arguing that they did it on "doctor's recommendation." Doctors are not infallible, and they can be pathetic parents just like the rest who would "dope" a child for peace and quiet. These doctors should have their licenses re-evaluated.

This issue is a broader perspective on the rise of diagnosis of emotional and psychological problems in children as young as three years old. The rise of ADD, ADHD, and other "conditions," is much more a reflection of inept parenting and immaturity than it is about actual medical conditions. The more I teach - and raise my own children - the more I realize how immature and incapable many adults and parents are.

Parents and Education

There has been much talk recently about the role parents play in the academic success of their kids. JoanneJacobs has recently posted about this, and Geoffery Canada continues to call on families to step up for the good of their kids. For, it's pretty clear that regardless of changes made to schools, if the families are not buying in, the changes will not ensure success.

Thus, it's refreshing to see the approach taken by the inspiring leader of a long-struggling school in Denver. Principal Antonio Esquibel is exactly the type of leader needed in a school like Abraham Lincoln High School of the struggle Denver Public Schools. Reform efforts in Denver have begun to key in on the importance of parent buy-in. And when Esquibel can report that Parents' Night which used to draw fewer that 100 adults is now pulling in 1,500, we know he's on to something.

Of course, the argument has always come - but what if the parents simply don't step up? What about those kids? Are they destined for failure? While there's a lot of evidence for that, it is simply unacceptable to abandon them. Schools need to do everything they can to help kids succeed in spite of their home lives. But if the emphasis on academics begins in the home, it will be all the more likely the schools will succeed.

Youth Sports and the Dark Side of Man

Well, I'd heard about it, and read about it, and now I've experienced it - insanely pathetic parents. My seven-year-old son is playing youth basketball, and at the last game of the season, I listened to a referee warn a coach who was cursing at his players, and I watched, open-mouthed, as a mother stormed on to the court to yell at the ref during the game after her son fouled out and was sent to the bench for unsportsmanlike conduct after he shoved a player to the ground while pushing through a screen.

And, I realized, if we are going to be in youth sports, then we are on the right team with the right group of kids because our coach and parents were shocked and would never do that.

A colleague who coaches, and whose girls have been through youth and club sports, told me, as I signed up for the team after years of decrying this kind of behavior for years, "You've entered the machine. Be careful."

Yes, exactly.

Game Night

"Mr. Mazenko, do you have game night at your house?"

That question has been asked numerous times over the years in my classroom, and the answer is always the same. "Game night? Every night is game night at my house." In the past three nights, my family - my wife, my three-year-old daughter, my six-year-old son, and me - has played Uno, Zingo, and Monopoly Jr. after dinner and before bed. We always play after dinner - all summer long, if it's nice, the neighborhood kids are out on the driveway playing ball tag, kickball, four square, hide-and-seek, wall ball, or other games. When it's rainy or cold, which is coming with winter, our kids are inside playing board games, or hide-and-seek, or any variation of indoor ball games. Thus, the concept of "game night" is rather odd, and it's sad but indicative of contemporary culture that we think that way. Even as I write this, my kids and three neighbors (ages 8, 10, and 12) are in our house on a rainy day playing Monopoly, Jr. (If I can I'm joining the next game, which I'm hoping is Trouble).

Whenever my students ask me about game night, I posit that the world would be a far better place if they asked the question, "Mr. Mazenko, do you have "TV night" at your house?" What if TV weren't the norm, but something families did occasionally on the few nights they weren't playing together? Granted, it's easy for me now, with such young children, to spend a lot of time playing. We don't have many extracurricular activities and homework, and my kids are in bed by 8:00 every night. However, it's not just easy; it's so important to developing skills and relationships and cognitive functions. My son learned his numbers very early - and we spent a lot of time playing the game sorry. My children's verbal skills are often complimented by friends, teachers, and complete strangers - and we spend a lot of time talking to our kids.

Game playing and interpersonal relationship development are integral to raising healthy, confident, productive kids. Perhaps, someday it will be the norm in contemporary families.

The Shrek Factor

“Mr. Mazenko, has your son seen …” That question, followed by the title of the latest offering from Disney, Pixar, or Dreamworks, has opened up endless discussion in my classes about choices parents make in raising their children.

My students, as well as colleagues and other parents, are often shocked to know that my four-year-old son has never seen any of the movies they mention. It gets worse when people learn my son has never seen any movies. Inevitably, my answer comes, creating groans as countless hands shoot in the air to offer a comment. “No,” I say, “my son hasn’t seen Shrek. He’s only four years old.”

Though it may seem snide, I tend to qualify my answer by giving my son’s age, implying to my audience that it’s obvious why he hasn’t seen it. He’s too young. However, knowing my belief is not the norm, I’m certain this will extend the conversation, rather than bring it to a conclusion. I’m under no illusion that my audience will hear my son’s age and think, “Oh, of course he hasn’t seen it. Shrek isn’t appropriate for young children.” Instead, I know they believe that the movie is entirely acceptable for him.

They often know, or at least anticipate my objections, but they have an answer. The movie, they believe, offers the best of both worlds. It’s a movie that has qualities both young children and adults will enjoy. “But he won’t even get the adult humor,” they tell me. “It goes right over kids’ heads.” Here is where we part ways in the discussion. They believe this blend of adult material into children’s films doesn’t matter. I fundamentally disagree.

I think the essence of the argument comes down to a common belief that what we don’t know won’t hurt us. If my son doesn’t understand the sexual innuendoes uttered by the donkey in Shrek or the genie in Alladin, then it shouldn’t matter that he hears them. As a parent, however, I don’t want to make decisions that way. For me, it’s not about whether or not it will hurt my children. It’s about whether it will help them. Parenting decisions should be made on what is best for the child. Will he suffer psychological scarring if he sees the movie? Maybe not. Probably not. But neither will he suffer if he doesn’t see it. His life will not be lessened for lack of a movie. “But it’s so funny,” they say. “You’re depriving your son of one the great joys in life. Movies like Shrek and Aladdin and The Lion King are part of childhood.” That perspective saddens me.

Childhood is not about any one movie or story or toy or food or activity. Childhood is not about commodities at all. I truly believe my son will benefit more and will deprive more pleasure from digging for worms and chasing butterflies and riding his bike. I will see more joy on his face when he is tickling and being tickled by his younger sister than I will when he is staring at a movie or TV screen and giggling every once in a while.

In books such as The Disappearance of Childhood and Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, social critic Neil Postman explains that childhood is really an invention of the contemporary world. Prior to that time, children were predominantly dressed the same, viewed the same, and treated the same as adults. It wasn’t until people like Rousseau in his seminal work Emille that society began to look at the different cognitive and emotional development of children. Children should have different thoughts than adults. They should use different language, they should wear different clothes, and, in terms of Shrek, they should have different forms of entertainment.

According to Postman, the fundamental difference between childhood and adulthood is access to information. Adults quite simply know things that children don’t. There are adult words and adult conversations. There are adult situations and adult activities. If you think about it, in all coming-of-age literature, the loss of innocence comes when the children become aware of the adult world. The original loss of innocence came when man ate from the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve discovered shame. They were no longer innocent because they had gained more information.

If information is different for adults and children, then it’s not a stretch for entertainment to be different as well. I can watch a half-hour of Clifford with my son and not be bored simply because there is no adult humor. Media corporations, however, have figured out that they can double their revenues by creating animated films that will draw audiences both young and old. Thus, based on the idea of access to information, if we develop entertainment, such as Shrek, which is marketed to kids and adults, we have effectively eliminated childhood.

Interestingly, contemporary television, notably sitcoms, adds to this societal dilemma by blurring the lines between children’s and adult’s roles. Watching shows such as According to Jim and Two and a Half Men, I am struck by the fact that the adult and child characters are predominantly the same. They use the same language. There is no discernable difference between the words and patterns they use, nor the topics they discuss. Contemporary fashion is important, too, as both the adults and children wear the same styles of clothing. At times, the kids are portrayed as more mature than their parents. Obviously, it is the irony and sarcasm of these situations that makes them humorous. I will concede that that is precisely the writers’ point. But a line is blurred if this becomes entertainment for all ages. When a five-year-old tells me that American Idol is her favorite show, I cringe, knowing the harshness of Simon’s language is inappropriate for her once-innocent ears.

People say you can’t shelter your children from the harsh realities of the world forever, and I most certainly agree. As an educator who teaches countless examples of coming-of-age literature, I couldn’t agree more. Teaching high school, it is my job to be with children as they grow into adults. I can’t protect my son forever, but I can certainly shelter him at the age of four. That is a far cry from shielding him from the teachings of Darwin when he is in high school. Though many critics of my choices make that comparison.

“No,” I tell them. “My son hasn’t seen Shrek.” This always shocks and disappoints them. Imagine what they’ll think when they learn he doesn’t eat candy.