Troop Beverly Hills

Katie is now in kindergarten, and that means we get to enter the world of Girl Scouts. It's a different world than Boy Scouts! Not that the boys don't have their issues - for one, there's the bit about teaching scouts to be respectful to all people, religions and cultures, yet banning gays and lesbians. (What's more - since Unitarian Universalists refuse to discriminate on anyone based on sexual orientation, the Boy Scouts have removed the Religious Emblem for Unitarian Universalism from their lineup of Religious Emblems that can be earned. But I digress. Here's an interesting link if you want to read more: http://www.uuscouters.org/)

Anyways, I dutifully signed up to be a troop leader because, well, your child gets out of scouts what parents put into it. Drop-off parents lead to drop-out scouts. I am uneasy about leading groups of kids. Adults barely listen to me, muchless kids! But, parenthood is nothing if not a great adventure in stepping out of your comfort zone and doing things you didn't know you could do. Sometimes I think I learn as much as or more than my kids do from scouting.

So once I made the decision to volunteer, I signed up for the required volunteer courses. There are several different courses that new leaders must go through. They do a criminal background check, they call all 3 of your character references, they even wanted my resume of previous volunteer experience. Pretty serious stuff! At one of the training courses, I was advised that troops could use their cookie money to pay for stuff like the following examples:

Flying to Chicago to go to the American Girl Store
Going to Libby Lu's at the mall to get made over as rock stars

And that troop activities could include such educational opportunities as:

Putting on jewelry and makeup to learn about our appearance
Fashion design
Home economics (that's dandy....but I want to see the boys learning this too)

Then someone made the comment that planning a troop meeting was like planning a birthday party. I just about lost it.

I raised my hand to ask the trainer if she was serious. She was. She then sheepishly added that she herself had not done these things with her troop, but that others did. She added that "since not all girls like to camp or do ourdoorsy things, you have to do some activities to cater to their interests in order to keep them in the scouting program."

I have a couple of issues with that. One, I don't believe there's such a thing as girls or boys who don't like to camp or do outdoorsy things. Only parents who feel that way, probably raised by parents who raised them the same way, who put their irrational fears of dirt, bugs or whatever onto their offspring. Two, perhaps scouting isn't for everyone. When scouting has to become something other than scouting in order to keep kids in scouting, what have we really accomplished?

Also, what of teaching kids values? Scouting is supposed to teach kids to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, responsible, respectful and environmentally conscious. What are you teaching when you set kids up with the "I live to be entertained" mentality? Scouting was never meant to be entertainment. Scouting is meant to be character building.

I am starting off with 5-year-olds. But mark my words, if I ever find out that Katie's troop is going to the American Girl store as a troop activity, we'll be looking for the nearest 4-H chapter.

Tiny Diamonditis and Now It's Much More Fun to go Shopping

My friend (who shall remain nameless) called me from the highway the other day where, as she drove to East Texas to drop her son off for a camping weekend, she saw a billboard. In East Texas. It said this:

"Gentlemen, does your lady suffer from Tinydiamonditis? Is she embarrassed to wear her diamond in Public? Is her daughter or Daughter in laws diamond bigger than hers? We can help your cure this terrible complex..." (You get the idea)

My friend was pretty appalled at this. Was it the notion that men actually think that women feel this way about their status and their jewelry? Or the accusation that this mentality may be true? Of all the places for this kind of thinking to be pervasive, I would not have suspected rural East Texas. But I didn't make too much of it. Maybe they're not serious....maybe it's just an advertising gimmick to get your attention by offending your sense of priorities. Maybe.

Well then today I opened my mailbox and found my "Living" magazine, you know, one of those local publications filled with ads for granite countertops, teeth whitening, overpriced baby furniture and the like, with perhaps a one-page article on fitness thrown in so that they can call it a magazine instead of junk mail. The back cover is this ad for a local plastic surgeon. According to his ad he specializes in botox, body contouring, tummy tuck, liposuction, face lift, brow lift, eye lift, lip enhancement, breast augmentation, reduction and lift. Yes, he has built a career capitalizing on women's insecurities and vanity. The picture is of a sexy Jessica Rabbit type woman (read: not proportional) with shopping bags in both hands, proclaiming "Now it's much more fun to go shopping!"

Okaaaaay...where to begin on this? Are women seriously so shallow that (a) appearance is valued above other traits, and (b) shopping is an actual life calling to which one can more thoroughly enjoy when one is more beautiful?

Ok I must admit that not being beautiful is not hard if you have never been beautiful to begin with. Aging isn't nearly so painful when you realize that beauty lies within before you reach adulthood; somewhere between the hormone storm of puberty and college graduation is when I believe that "healthy" women get their priorities straight. These people who are having a hard time not being depressed as they get older are having these problems because their values are so skewed that they never actually found something to be happy about other than their looks, and then when the body ages, they have nothing left to be happy about - no higher calling, no purpose for living, no life's ambition, no joyeux de vivre. Just living from shopping trip to shopping trip. (Isn't there some kind of psychiatric diagnosis for women who become sad and depressed if they do not get a shopping "fix" every so often?)

At any rate, as a mostly-intelligent and average-at-best looking person, I am embarrassed to be a part of a population, time and place that actually has these kind of warped values. What will future generations look back and think about us as a society?

Now another whole bend on this is that, out of all those surgeries that this guy performs, the breast reduction is actually meaningful and warranted. As a consumer of said surgery (although not with this surgeon) I really despise being lumped into this category of women. Especially by my insurance company. "Yes we cover that surgery under your plan - if your pre-operative photos show your nipples hanging down to the leve of your navel." Well I could wait a few decades to get to that point, but frankly there are some actual physical consequences to not having that surgery when you need it, not just cosmetic consequences. If other women weren't so vain, perhaps my insurance company would not have been so quick to lump me into that category and deny my claim. Thanks, ladies.

Nutrition, Picky Eaters, Juice Plus and the like

The following thread appeared on one of my Mommy listserves. I was going to bite my tongue and not reply, but after reading about Juice Plus, I couldn't resist the urge to chime in. Below the thread is my reply.

---- Melissa wrote:

Melissa posted:

Does anyone else have a stubborn toddler. Maybe it's just me. Ben does not eat any fruits or vegetables and I was wondering if anyone else has had this problem and if so do you have any suggestions.

I always say I get my best ideas from other people so please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

Melissa

Angel commented:

Tommy will not eat fruits or veggies either, except bananas. I'm taking him to an occupational therapy evaluation this week to see if he has any sensory issues. I'll let you know what I find out. Let me know if you get any other tips.

Angel

Kate commented:

I'll mail you a few packs of what my kids drink to meet their fruit & veggie requirements, see if Ben likes them. It's what my kids drink every day to get all their servings of fruits & veggies.

Christine also has an awesome recipe for brownies that hide spinach in them, she made them for me when James was born. Yum.

Christine commented:

Juice Plus is another way to get kids to get their vitamins in. They come

in gummy form and they have veggie ones and fruit ones.

Christine

Holly commented:

I would be so interested in your packets Kate! Also - our November speaker (who does Juice Plus on the side I think) is going to help us with that exact topic!

And here is my reply –

I hope I don't alienate anyone, but I have been chewing on this thread in my mind all day, and feel inclined to voice my opinion. Opinions are like bellybuttons - we all have them! So, no offense intended to anyone who disagrees.

First of all, I think that the concept of children being picky eaters and stubborn about food choices is pretty much universal - across cultures and throughout history. So while there are some kids with genuine sensory or swallowing issues, I believe that the vast majority of picky eaters are normal children displaying a part of normal development.

That said, it's not all about the food. I think that a lot of the stubbornness and willfulness with the 2 to 4 year old crowd is really more about testing to see who is in control and who gets to make what decisions. Sure you can sneak in multivitamins and put spinach in the brownies and carrots in the cake. I do those things too. But to the kids, it's not just about what's to eat, it's about control and it's about learning the difference between things you do because you enjoy them and things you do because they're good for you (or an adults tells you that you have to do.)

In my opinion, I would be careful about setting a precedent that if you don't like something, I'll make it tasty or make it fun for you. Much of life is not pleasant, and some if it is downright unpleasant. The sooner kids learn that life is not one big opportunity to be entertained and everything is not fun/tasty, the better off they'll be as they grow up and face bigger challenges. Much of what adults do, they do because it's good for them, their family or their community, regardless of whether it's fun. (I could digress here on how work becomes fun when you throw yourself into work that you feel passionately about, but that's another conversation.)

A few sayings have played over in my head like a tape recorder.

(1) One was our first pediatrician, an older gentleman with old-school thinking, telling me "Mom, your job is to serve nutritious meals. Your son's job is to eat them. You just worry about your job."

(2) This is something I heard a speaker on Nutrition say at a MOPS meeting: "The parent is in charge of WHAT the child eats, WHEN the child eats, and WHERE the child eats. The child is in charge of WHETHER they eat and how much they eat." To me, this pretty much sums it up. If you present your child with a nutritionally balanced diet, day in and day out, they are going to snub certain things and sometimes you may have to serve a certain food 20 times over several months before they ever even try it. But you won't end up with a child who eats unhealthily if all of the choices are healthy. Additionally, if you serve the meal with a smile on your face and don't worry about what goes uneaten, you remove the element of control. Much of what kids refuse to eat, they refuse simply because they realize that Mom wants them to eat it and/or will put on a great display of emotion or persuasion if said food does not get eaten - so, what better way to control Mom? Better not to make the dinnertable into a battleground to begin with.

(3) This I heard from a speaker on Nutrition at a CECPTA meeting, and my husband and I have laughed about it over the years. "It takes 60 days for a toddler to starve!" Of course we're not starving our kids - but if they snub a meal entirely, that's their prerogative. If they go to bed hungry, so be it. But I only serve one meal and only at the designated mealtime. If you don't like any of it, you don't eat. "I am not a short-order cook." (My kids will quote me on that!) If my child says, "But Mom! I'm staaarving!" I smile and say sweetly, "Don't worry honey, it takes 60 days for a child to starve." A side story - one of my friends came to this particular CECPTA meeting because she was dealing with these very issues with her son. She raised her hand and asked the speaker, "What would you recommend for a child who only eats french fries?" The answer was obvious (but not to my friend): "Stop serving french fries."

(4) And my last favorite saying - this is one that my kids have heard me say so many times, that they tell their friends who visit during mealtime - "You don't have to like it, you just have to eat it!" This is of course a great reference to the fact that eating isn't always about entertainment, it's about giving your body the fuel it needs to be healthy. Nobody said it would always be fun. Putting spinach in the brownies is a great way to get more green stuff down the hatch if it's done in addition to nutritious meals, but be careful about sending the message that you only have to eat stuff that's fun to eat.

Lastly, and this is more about nutrition than parenting, I believe that foods are most nutritive when eaten as close to their original source as possible. Meaning, fresh fruits and veggies are best, followed by frozen, canned, etc, on down the line. But in my mind, the nutritive value of a fruit or vegetable is reduced to a shred of its original value when put into a pill, powder or concentrate, etc. There is no bulk fiber either. Not only that, such items offer false security if parents see them as an alternate to proper dietary intake instead of a supplement. But even as a supplement, I question the need because if you're already eating healthy then you don't need it, and if you're not eating healthy, the supplement is not meant to take the place of healthy food choices. I could go on about this but these two websites really do a good job of dissecting this issue.

From Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/juiceplus.html

Juice Plus - A Critical Look: http://www.mlmwatch.org/04C/NSA/juiceplus.html

I hope some may find this helpful, and if you disagree please know that my intention was not to offend. We all make so many choices as parents, they will not always be the same choices, but we all have the best interest of our children at heart.

The Ignorant Lady at the King Tut Exhibit

Jay, Andy and I went with a friend's cub scout pack to see King Tut when the exhibit came to Dallas. It was very impressive and very well done! I was dissappointed not to see the actual mummy in the last room of the exhibit, but understand that it is fragile. The artifacts are simply amazing. It's amazing to think that people in a civilization over 3 thousand years ago lived much like we do, in fact, probably better than we did here in America until only a century or two ago. Everything from culture, art, and government to daily life and personal affects are eerily similar to life as we know it today, or at least, not too long ago.

While we were making our way through the various rooms, it became apparent that a woman in our tour group was more knowledgeable than the guide. Her information and anecdotes were more informative and more colorful. The guide seemed irritated and told her that our group was taking too long in each room because we were all flocking to listen to her. Anyways, the woman pointed out that the ancient Egyptians had believed in multiple gods, but Tutankhamun's predecessor had legislated that there would be only one god, which was very unpopular. King Tut made the switch back to many gods. (I suppose that God will just go on being, or not, regardless of what humans legislate, but that's another thread.)

One woman in the audience made this comment: "Wow, it's amazing that their civilization could be so ADVANCED yet so STUPID AND IGNORANT at the same time!"

Wow indeed. One day I expect future civilizations to say that about us. I mean, wow, look at us. With our modern technology and our advanced education and our ability to tame the globe and beyond...yet...there are still people among us who believe in the immaculate conception. Or that priests can turn crackers and grape juice into flesh and blood. Or that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. And flat. Or that we all decended from a man in a garden and a woman made from the man's rib. Or that someone can die on a cross 2000 years ago and that for this reason people can make mistakes without fear of going to the "bad place." Or, hell, no pun intended, even that the "good place" and "bad place" are real.

Yes, so advanced, but so stupid and ignorant. But maybe we, like the ancient Egyptians, are not stupid and ignorant so much as we are not yet capable, or privy to, the ability to wrap our minds around the vastness of all that is.

Cub Scout Popcorn Sales and Other Assorted Well-Intentioned Fundraisers

Cub Scout Popcorn Sale Season is coming! And I am not just picking on the Scouts here. Actually I love the Scouts. I love what Scouting is intended to teach kids, I love scouting values, and I love being a part of a scouting program as a parent as much as I did as a child. But popcorn season comes on the heels of the school fundraisers, sport team fundraisers, girl scout cookie season, church silent auctions, PTA bake sales and book fairs, the list goes on and it has no end.

Note that this entire thread applies to all of the above. Especailly the PTA book fair, they have a special place in my heart for sending the kids to the fair during the school day and thus using peer pressure to convince my 3rd Grader to make poor spending choices. In the case of the book fair, families are actually victimized on both ends of the deal - first, it's no secret that the school only makes a small amount of money compared to what Scholastic makes, and second, the kids are the ones purchasing the overpriced $10 paperback books when they could have bought a whole stack of books at Half Price Books or a library used book sale for the same amount. So the kids get dinged twice - first they wasted their money on poor quality overpriced books, and secondly, their school could have benefitted more had they just given the difference to the school instead of to Scholastic. But I digress. Back to the Cub Scout Popcorn.

OK, so here's how it works. We need to raise some money to support the activities we want our kids to participate in this year. And the scouting program itself is meant to teach our kids values like responsibility, accountability, and making good choices, among other lofty ideals. So there are some obvious (to me) paradoxes here.

If I want my child to participate in an activity outside of taxpayer-funded public school, like scouts or sports or private school or field trips or whathaveyou, I should pay for it myself. Or if my child is old enough, he should earn the money to pay for it. But there is no reason that my neighbors and co-workers should be expected to fund my child's activities. Nor for me to fund their children's activities. If we all took the amount we spent on our friends and neighbors' kids' fundraisers and just donated it to our own kids' activities, we'd be set. Those $5 here and $10 there do add up.

No kidding, it does not take a math genius to figure out how fundraising works. The kids sell some sort of product and earn a small percentage of the sales. Who actually profits? The company that provides the goods for the fundraiser, of course. The goods are always overpriced (so that the company can make a good profit even after giving the scouts their cut) and they are invariably something you do not need nor would you have gone out of your way to purchase had you not been guilted into it because the person asking is your neighbor or coworker's kid. Here's an idea: why don't we buy $10 gift cards to Walmart and sell them for $15. It's the same thing, with the advantage being that the purchaser can at least buy something they want with it. Or wait, here's a better idea: just ask for a donation that's equal to what the profit for the scouts would have been. That way the scouts get the same amount but nobody has to buy $50 worth of popcorn in order for the scouts to get $5.

What is time worth? Arbitrarily, let's say I make $30 per hour after taxes at my job. Best case: If I take my son out selling popcorn door-to-door for several weekends over a period of several months, which is typical, and we sell a whopping $500 worth of popcorn (only a few scouts sell $500 or above), we'd earn $50 for the scouts. I could have earned that in under 2 hours at my job. This is on top of the fact that I just gave up scarce weekend time in which we could have been doing fun family activities or whatever else. Now on top of all that, we have to pick up the popcorn and deliver it. And it comes in really big boxes and cartons. So there goes some more driving time, gas money, inconvenience. Enough said.

What does selling popcorn teach our boys? Arguably it teaches them how to overcome shyness, how to talk to adults, and perhaps some math. I would argue that there are other and better ways to teach that. Put on a talent show at a senior center, have the kids volunteer at church alongside adults, run a concession stand at a local event, deliver meals on wheels, the list goes on. It is not my neighbors or coworkers job to help my child overcome shyness. Besides, I think we need to give kids some credit. They are smart enough to know when an adult is humoring or pitying them. Most people have good manners and don't want to tell a young child "no." So we are preying apon people's polite nature when we ask them to buy something they don't need or want and put a small puppy-dog-eyed child in front of them. Taking advantage of other people's weaknessess or politeness is not something we should be teaching our kids is appropriate or acceptable.

Let me explain what I try to teach my kids. I want them to understand the value of a dollar, and that little amounts add up over time. I want them to understand the difference between a "need" and a "want." I want them to be able to see through advertising and marketing strategies. I want them to learn how to save for the future, how to make wise financial decisions, how to pass up impulse purchases in favor of long-term goals, how to forgo instant gratification, how to survive without keeping up with the Joneses, and that happiness comes from within and can't be purchased. So, if I am successful at instilling these values into my children, they will know better than to purchase junk food just because it's in a pretty tin and it's in front of them right now. So why, oh why, would I teach my kids that spending money on overpriced popcorn is a bad monetary decision, yet then send them out to go and convince friends and family to make this admittedly poor choice? Why would we teach our kids that this is how we treat people we love, by asking them to do things that hurt them but benefit us?

What about Nutrition? All these girl scout cookies, cub scout popcorn, school peanut brittle and soccer team chocolate frogs are easy sells. Everywhere you turn the media is telling our kids to eat junk. How can we teach our children about proper nutrition when we turn around and tell them that junk food is OK on special occasions, and then proceed to find some reason for all 365 days of the year to be some sort of a special occasion? (My daughter's preschool class this past year was grouped by age. All 16 kids had birthdays in a 2-month period. Class was Monday-Wednesday-Friday. So you know what happened....they had cupcakes or cookies every single day that they went to school for 5 weeks straight.)

I believe that children learn as much or more from what we do and model to them as from what we say with words. If we want to teach wise money management and good nutrition, we should not encourage children to capitalize on persuading friends and family to make poor choices. We should also teach accountability by teaching that we should not expect others to pay for our own wants and needs.

Birth Control

Why do so many educated and otherwise rational women say they got pregnant but weren't trying? And act surprised that they are pregnant? And then, in some cases, expect other people to support their pregnancy, their child, their child care expenses, etc, because none of this was their fault?

First off, we all know how pregnancy happens. And secondly, since we are an educated society, we all pretty much know about birth control. But many of these women who claim to have gotten pregnant by accident, when asked if and what they were doing to prevent pregnancy at the time that they conceived, will readily admit "nothing." Well I have news for you. If you weren't doing anything to prevent pregnancy, then in effect, you did in fact plan to became pregnant, you were in fact "trying" if you weren't actively not trying. And if you were doing something to prevent pregnancy and got pregnant anyways, were you using your chosen method according to the instructions? Because being on the pill but skipping some days in the hopes that you could become pregnant but tell your boyfriend/husband/significant other that it was by accident and that you don't know how you got pregnant because you are on the pill...well...this would still count as a planned pregnancy.

Yes, I am aware that some women get pregnant in spite of using birth control properly. But this would really be a very small, small percentage.

And don't even get me started on the Rhythm Method. There's a word for couples who rely on that method. It's "parents." Ditto for the abstinence method. It only works, duh, for people who are abstinent. It's completely non-effective for people who are not abstinent but whose parents think they are.

Day Care

I saw a sign out in front of a local day care the other day. It said, "You see messes, we see Michaelangelo." The next day it read, 'You hear noise, we hear Mozart." Cute, right? Well, perhaps I'm just in one of those funks where everything, no matter now innocent, seems to rub me the wrong way. But it was like a slap in the face to me - here I am, being a stay-at-home parent, working my butt off to make ends meet and manage a household while providing my children with a perfect childhood full of love, adventure, educationally stimulating experiences and opportunities, etc, only to be told that parents don't know how to appreciate their children's talents, but a bunch of minimum-wage daycare workers are going to be better at raising, appreciating and nurturing my kids than I am? Give me a break! I'm sure that if I were a parent who needed to use a Day Care for whatever reason, I would want to find one whose staff loved and appreciated my child as much as I do, as if that were possible. But the notion that a Day care could do a better job than a parent can is ludicrous. To imply so is more offensive to me than comforting.

This may be an irrational belief in this day and age, but I believe that if you don't want to raise a child, you should not have a child in the first place. If you would rather have a career than parent a child, then do so by all means, but don't have a child as casually as one might adopt a pet, or because you want to have someone's picture on your Christmas card. A child is a responsibility; parenting IS a full-time job. If one parent or the other is not willing to sacrifice career for a decade or so, maybe it's not time to breed just yet. And I don't even want to hear that you will raise your child while working from home. What will your child be doing while you work? Watching TV? Children pretty much require 99% of your attention, 99% of the time.

To back up a bit, I'm not talking about the parents who have to work because their spouse died, they got divorced, became disabled, etc. But I do mean the parents who claim they can't get by on one income. My parents told me to go to college and major in something that would provide me with a secure job and benefits, BEFORE taking on the responsibility of having children. Didn't everyone's parents teach them this? If you can't get by one one income, perhaps you or your spouse should go back to school or move forward with whatever career ambition it is that you have, BEFORE adding a dependant child to the mix. Or, what about the parents who only need that second income to support their 3000 square foot home and their 2 new car payments and their fancy vacations, kids' private school tuition, or hockey dues, or whatever? Kids don't need all that stuff - but they do need parents to guide them and instill their values apon them. But wait, they did instill their values on them - the value that material possessions are more important than time spent with them. What message does this send children?

For those who claim that they got pregnant and had a child before they planned to and thus were not financially ready to be a parent, see my other blog on birth control...

Why I Volunteer (Featuring a Side Rant on what a thankless job it can be)

There is a whole culture about Volunteerism that I've found myself indoctrinated into since becoming an adult. It started out innocently enough with volunteering for groups like my Homeowners Association and for extra projects at my first job. Then after kids came along it was the Early Childhood PTA, followed by the church. When one child was diagnosed with special needs, it became the Special Ed PTSA. When my kids joined Cub Scouts and Girl Scouts, those groups also required volunteers. This is not to mention the preschools, schools, and the various sporting activities over the years that run on volunteer power. The list goes on and on. Some involve leadership positions and large commitments of time and energy; many were just simple near-effortless tasks with a beginning and an end.

My Mother can't figure out why I volunteer for stuff. She did do some volunteering when my brother and I were in elementary school, but never a lead role. While I appreciate in hindsight that she was involved in our childhood, I can't seem to understand her attitude that volunteer leadership roles are for "other people" and I should "focus on my own family." If we all took that approach and shunned the leadership positions, there would be nothing there to volunteer for or to participate with in the first place. Who are the "other people" who should be taking the lead roles? Someone has to be that "other person." And why should the mysterious "other people" help me and my family if I am not willing to do so?

What I'd like to know is, how can we NOT volunteer for stuff? Many of these organizations benefit ourselves, our children, and our communities, and are fueled entirely or primarily by volunteers. How can we expect for there to be a team to put our kids on if nobody volunteers to coach? Or for there to be a scout troop if nobody volunteers to lead it? If we don't step up to volunteer, how can we expect others to give of themselves on behalf of our children if we ourselves aren't willing to do so? Better yet, how can we teach our kids about values like giving and service if we aren't willing to model those values? The measure of our lives is, in the end, what difference we can make while we're here. And you get out what you put in. If I'm not willing to put honest-to-goodness effort into creating the kind of world I want for my children, then I forfeit my say in our future.

That said, there's a lot about Volunteerism that people seem to have misconceptions about. "I am not getting paid to do this, so you should just be thankful for anything I do." And a variant of this, "I may not be doing my job completely, but I'm doing a little bit when I can, and that's better than nothing." Of course when it comes to volunteering, it's important to give of yourself whatever you can even if your time commitment may be small - but that should be taken into consideration when opting what to volunteer for, not after taking on too much. Something is better than nothing. But at the same time, some volunteers that I have encountered over the years have treated volunteer jobs as unimportant and easily ignored when one becomes ill or life otherwise becomes busy. While it's true that volunteer jobs are the first to go when a spouse is out of work or a family member is ill, and rightfully so, that should not mean that the volunteer job should be ignored. It still needs to be addressed. Volunteer jobs are often similar to paying jobs in that people are depending on you, and others can't do their job (of their efforts will have been for naught) if anyone's part goes undone. If the group is depending on a volunteer to do a certain task by a certain time, then the volunteer has the same responsibility to let others know if they are in need of help. With a paying job, you'd call in sick or ask a coworker to cover if you were going to be absent. Volunteer jobs should be treated the same way.

Something I have lamented on several occasions over the years is that well-intentioned volunteers, often the ones with the biggest hearts, don't know when it's time to ask for help or resign. They don't want to be seen as quitters so even though they aren't able to get their tasks done, they don't ask for help and they don't give up their position. This makes for a very difficult decision on the part of the group's leader. If a volunteer knows that they are going to be unable to fulfill their obligations for a period of time and they let the leader know, arrangements can be made to cover for those tasks, and everyone is happy. If a volunteer resigns, the group can advertise their position as open and recruit another volunteer. Or the leader can do that task themselves, or delegate to another volunteer. But when a volunteer simply fails to perform a task (or fails to perform the task within the necessary time frame) without notifying anyone, it leaves the leader to guess what has been done and what still needs to be done. It also leaves the leader with the choices of doing that person's task for them behind the scenes, nagging them to do it, or as a last resort, removing a volunteer from their position (never pleasant for the leader or the volunteer). None of those options are very good.

Add to that, it's often difficult to know which path to choose because volunteers all have different styles. Some will always get their tasks done even if it sometimes involves asking for help or delegating. Some will do fabulous work, but only some of the time, depending on their personal schedule or other factors. Some read email, some don't. Some take ownership of their task; others prefer to wait for instructions. (Which is OK!) Some can receive instructions one time and run with it. Others need reminders every time something is to be done. So when you lead a group of volunteers, you have to relate to each volunteer not only based on what their position is within the organization, but also based on what their talent and "ownership style" is. Leaders need to keep mental tabs of what everyone needs to be doing and when, who needs email reminders and how far ahead, who needs phone reminders, and who will be insulted if reminded. Leaders also need to read minds to know who might be ill or just getting behind even when people don't tell you, or who has gotten busy at their job or with their child and has put their volunteer role on backburner. Leaders need to anticipate when they need to step in even if nobody tells them, and Leaders need to apologize for the mistakes of others without mentioning that it was someone else's mistake. Leaders need to be able to withstand criticizm and complaints from not only other volunteers, but at times, from the very people that the group is attempting to serve. Leaders also need to do all of this without the benefit of being able to talk things over with a friend, because since the volunteers often know each other socially, this would constitute gossip. Leaders also need to sometimes do double-work just in case. For example, what do you do when you are depending on a person to (okay some of you might recognize this) to bring the snacks to a certain event, but that person only does so about half the time and rarely lets you know when that half will be? The leader winds up having to always take the snack themselves or ask someone else to do so, but keep it in the car trunk as backup in case the first volunteer doesn't come through. This kind of double-work is exhausting. But the alternative is confronting the volunteer, which often leads to hurt feelings - and since we all know that volunteers are fueled by the warm fuzzy feeling that you get from volunteering, confrontation is rarely the way to recruit or maintain volunteers.

It is easy to judge the leader of any organization (or the boss at work) for their decisions. What I wish others realized is that it's just as hard to pick up the phone and tell someone "I appreciate your work but....(insert constructive criticism)" as it is to hear that criticism. What I wish would be for each person who feels like they could have done a better job to try being the leader or boss of something. See if you can make everyone happy all of the time. See if you can get things done on time when the pieces of the whole are not done on time. Go for it! But I can guarantee you that there will be times you get backed into a corner because as the leader, there are times you get put in a position where no matter what you do, someone will find fault with it. You're the top of the command so anything that goes wrong is your fault. Everyone else can be sick/busy/uninterested in doing a certain task, but the leader has to see to it that everything gets done anyways. The leader can't get sick or have a family emergency without finding coverage (like the time my daugher was bitten by a dog right before our PTA meeting with officer elections - I called the 1st VP from the ER with instructions on how to run the meeting.) Imagine how smoothly things would function if everyone replaced themselves instead of putting things off on the leader! Perhaps more people would be willing to volunteer to lead? It's no wonder that year after year with any organization I've ever been a part of, the hardest role to fill is that of the leader.

The other thing I wish volunteers would realize about the decisions that leaders must make is that oftentimes is boils down to procedure. It's not personal and has nothing to do with friendship or personal relationships. If a certain task needs to be done by a certain time, and a person fails to come through once, often this can be brushed off, especially if there is an extenuating circumstance. But if it happens repeatedly, the leader must counsel the person and perhaps review the agreed-upon tasks and timeframe. This, unfortunately, involves documenting occurences. If problems persist, the leader is left with really three (or four, if you consider the drastic) options.
(1) The leader does the task behind the scenes and lets the volunteer take credit for it.
(2) The leader can delegate the task to another volunteer (not as pleasant, because it involves talking with the other volunteer about the fact that the first volunteer has not come through - can be seen as gossiping)
(3) Depending on how crucial the task is, the leader can consult with the other leaders/board members as to whether the task can simply be left undone. (Not always an option, and can also turn into gossip.)
(4) Go through formal procedures to remove the volunteer from their position (awful for everyone involved)

So as a leader, I've been put in the position of having to choose one of these options more times than I can count. I tend to go with #1. I had to do #4 on one occasion and believe me, there is no way to do it without hurt feelings and worse yet, without notifying other people and thus the "gossip" factor. So #1 is the most unobtrusive, nicest way to handle this predicament.

Hmmm. Now that I'm re-reading my post here, I have to wonder if perhaps my Mother was right...

The Pinata Story, a.k.a. Everyone Gets a Blue Ribbon - and what this is really doing to our children

Maybe I'm getting old...but remember back in the days when you had to work hard to earn stuff? When you had to try out to make a team, and not everyone got picked? When you only got a blue ribbon if you came in first? When there was no "participation prize?" And it all made you motivated to practice stuff, try harder, and do your best? And, let's not forget, you had to learn how to congratulate the winner and lose gracefully? Is that stuff out of style these days?

Katie takes gymnastics lessons. She was probably barely 4 years old when her gym held a Gymnastics Meet. All the kids were encouraged to sign up. There were various events for the kids to compete in. Identical trophies and medals (yes, both) were ordered in advance for each participant. Katie got scared when she saw all the parents watching; she cried and did not participate while her group was at the first 3-4 events. I went out onto the floor to console her and encourage her to participate, but it was just not going to happen; she had gone from being shy to having an all-out cry, with the big heaving sobs, a tear-stained face, the whole bit. She's only 4 and she is shy by nature; perhaps I should not have signed her up in the first place. I thought it would be good practice for her. But it was not going to happen, at least, not at this day and time. I scooped her up and was carrying her out of there to go home to happier things when one of the staff followed me out. "Here is Katie's trophy and ribbon, " she said. "Can Katie come over here so we can take her picture on the winner's stand?" Katie was good with that, she didn't mind posing on the block with her trophy and ribbon, and as a parent, I felt powerless to have done anything to stop it. But didn't we just do a couple things wrong here? One, we rewarded negative behavior and noncompliance with a prize and positive attentioni. And two, we just sent Katie the message that there's really not much point in putting effort into anything because you get the same result whether you work hard or don't participate at all. Now, I'm not all mean, I would not begrudge my poor child a sticker or lollypop for at least being present and going through that trauma, if not participating in any way. But to give her the same prize that the kids who gave it 100% got...well, that's a slap in the face to those kids who did work hard and earn it.

Fast forward to Andy's 8th birthday party. We had a pool party here at home, complete with party games. The kids in attendance were around the same age, friends and classmates mostly. We had a pinata filled with candy. Each child got an equal shot at hitting it with a bat. Each child had been given a paper sack to put candy in when the magical time came. And, when the candy dumped out, each child had, in my opinion, an equal shot at picking up candy. But of course, not all kids got the same amount of candy. Some kids scrambled quicker, some picked up the pieces of candy quicker, some tried harder, some held back and waited. When it was all over, one boy came up to me and said, "He got 17 pieces, I only got 6. What are you going to do about it?" I felt like saying, "that's because he picked up 17 pieces and you picked up 6" but didn't think this would be a nice thing to say at my son's birthday party. So I found some more candy and evened things out with a smile on my face. And stewed on the inside.
Then, we went to the pool to play "ditch and dive." For this game, we throw pennies into the pool and give the kids goggles and let them try to pick up as many as they can. Any child who wasn't comfortable with this or didn't know how to swim or hold their breath, of course, was not forced to participate. There was enough activity going on in the yard that nobody would have been singled out by not participating. Well as you can probably guess, this was a repeat of the pinata scenario. One of the kids pointed out the obvious: "this game isn't fair because the kids who are better at diving down are getting more pennies." (Really, no kidding?) So.....it would appear that, not only should the kids who lose be entitled to the same prize as the kids who win....but the kids who win should not get any extra recognition for their talent or effort because to praise one child is, in effect, insulting the others....?

Inclusion for Children with Disabilities

You'll notice I said "disabilities," not "special needs." Gosh I hate the term special needs. All of our children are special and they all have special needs. Sometimes I get so tired of being politically correct because I can't say what I really intend to say using the words I'm supposed to use.

Anyways, here are some more of my thoughts on this topic. This was adapted from a listserve discussion.

First I should recognize that if a child has special needs but can be successful in the gen ed setting, be it for academics or parties or sports of whatever, great! That is fabulous. For those kids, go for it!

I also want to recognize that I think we can all agree that our kids should not have to be ashamed of their disability, nor have to miss out or go home instead of participating in something.

But we need to recognize that that is not the case for all children. Generalizations from one child to another simply cannot be made, each child is an individual. It would be ludicrous to tell a parent of a child who is successful in the gen ed setting that they should be in an alternate setting, but it’s equally ludicrous to tell a parent of a child who is successful in an alternate setting – and not successful in the gen ed setting – that they should be in the gen ed setting anyways. One size does not fit all.

I agree that separate is not and never can be equal. However for my son I would not expect separate to be equal, that is the whole point. If it were the same, the accomodation would not be needed in the first place. The whole reason he needs separate is because he needs something that’s different, inherently unequal if you will.

If we eliminate separate but equal (to borrow the term) and require that the special ed kids be able to participate in the gen ed class and accept no alternative accommodation, then what really happens is that those kids who can’t do it, for whatever reason, wind up getting NOTHING. For example, the parent who said that her daughter was supposed to go to the party in the gen ed class but that it was overstimulating for her, so the option was to sign her out of school early and go home. I fail to see how “nothing” is better than a separate accommodation. A big example of this is the special needs storytime we talked about a few months back. While some see the alternative to be regular storytime, and for some kids that is the case, what really happens for kids like mine is that if no special storytime were available, he would be at home having no storytime at all. This is a giant step backwards, and most certainly not the intent of Inclusion.

Also, consider that if the typical activity is the goal, how are you going to get there? Perhaps if I can take my son to special parties, special sporting activities, special storytimes, etc, we can use that as an opportunity to practice appropriate behavior, and one day maybe we’ll be able to do the typical stuff. But if special is not permitted and we just stay home, how would he have the opportunity to practice? Consider the idea that the special activities can be used as a springboard to the mainstream activities. They’re just a step in the journey.

So in an effort to put the square peg in the round hole, sometimes, as with high-functioning kids or those without behavior or sensory issues, you can make it all work, and that’s wonderful. But in other cases, it becomes “not politically correct” to offer a alternative, what those kids end up getting is nothing. Without the “special” class party or the “special” storytime or the “special” sporting activity, kids like my son would not be somehow miraculously able to participate in the typical setting. He would be doing nothing. And on top if that, he would be making no progress towards ever being able to participate because he would not have a safe place to practice those skills.

For many people, Full Inclusion is a happy term because it conjures up images of their child merrily going about their daily activities and growing up side-by-side with their typical peers. And for many kids that’s a reality! That is so wonderful, and for those kids great strides have been made in the past decades. But for me, the idea of Full Inclusion cuts like a knife because what it boils down to is two choices – cope with the mainstream, or go home and hide. My son can’t cope with the mainstream in many, many instances, yet I should not have to keep him at home nor hide him away as if his disability is something to be ashamed of. That is most certainly not the intent of full inclusion. So, in order to include my son to the fullest extent possible, it’s just a fact that accommodations need to be made.

“Inclusion to the fullest extent possible” is a whole lot better than “Inclusion or go home and hide.”

Coke in School

OK, the title grabs you, right? No, I'm not talking about cocaine...I'm talking about Coca-cola. And other kinds of soda (for those of you who live in the North and don't know that "coke" means all kinds of soda...)

Anyways, I'm not talking about sodas in vending machines in the high schools. Or maybe even the middle schools. And I don't think the schools should be able to dictate what kids bring in their school lunches. If some other parent wants to put a can of coke in their child's lunchbag, it's none of my business. But to actually promote sodas in the elementary schools? I draw the line there.

So at our school for the school carnival last fall, they have this bottle-ring toss game. They ask parents to send in 2-liter sodas and they use them all to make this giant field of bottles and the kids throw rings and get to keep whatever they can throw the ring around. Why they couldn't use 2-liter lemonades, or fuit punch, of whatever else, I don't know. But I donated 2-liter lemonades and protested silently in that way.

But for the holiday party (remember it's not called a Christmas party) this is what happened. Parents in our class where given a list and asked to bring in something from that list. The only beverage listed on the list was "the small cans of soda." Keep in mind, this is 3rd grade. Not juice boxes or juice pouches, but small cans of soda. Of course, I chose some other snack item to send in, but I knew that for my child, the only beverage that would be served was soda. That is just plain wrong! Well I sent an email to the room mom asking if we could have some other options, which she arranged for, but then my child is in the awkward position of wanting the coke but choosing the fruit juice because mean ol' Mom said so. I know I can't control what my kids drink forever, but I had hoped to at least control what goes into their growing bodies at least through elementary school. And if someone were to seduce them with coke, I would have expected that from the media, but not from the PTA moms for goodness sakes.