A $50,000 playhouse for a kid?

Yes, there are four zeros in that figure. And yes, some parents are spending five figures and more for elaborate playhouses for their children in their backyards, according to this New York Times story.

Even in a troubled economy, it seems, some parents of means are willing to spend significant (if not eye-popping) sums on playhouses for their children that also function as a kind of backyard installation art.

There are a number of companies and independent craftsmen that make high-end playhouses, which can cost as much as $200,000, and come in a variety of styles, including replicas of real houses, like the Schillers’, and more-fantastical creations like pirate ships, treetop hideouts and fairy tale cottages. And many of these manufacturers report that despite the economic downturn, they are as busy as ever.

The Schillers in this case are John and Kristi who spent $50,000 to build a two-story 170-square-foot playhouse in the same Cape Code style as their "expansive main house."

The perks in the playhouse for their 4-year-old? Hardwood floors, faux fireplace with a mosaic mantel, a mini stainless-steel sink, fridge and freezer, and a 32-inch flat-screen TV.

But wait. There's Dan Burnham, a retired CEO of defense contractor Raytheon, who spent nearly $248,000 to build playhouses for his grandchildren.

“We’ve got chairs arrayed all around it, so we can watch the kids run, climb and scream,” he said. “It’s adorable and worth every penny.”

If you have the money, who am I to tell you how to spend it but $50,000 for example could pay for a year's tuition, room and board and other expenses at an elite private college.

Do kids really need a playhouse that costs as much as a real one in some cases to play and explore?

Posted by Hanah Cho at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Would you send your 3-year-old to a tutoring center?

More parents are doing moving in this direction, reports The New York Times, which takes an in-depth look at this trend.

As competition in education has spread down, the tutoring industry has followed.

Research suggests that there is little benefit from this kind of tutoring; that young children learn just as much about math, if not more, fitting mixing bowls together on the kitchen floor. But programs like Kumon are gaining from, and generating, parents’ anxiety about what kind of preparation their children will need — and whether parents themselves have what it takes to provide it. For those whose idea of enrichment is introducing “Buenas Noches, Luna” into their toddlers’ bedtime reading ritual, this is yet another reminder that no matter how much you do, there is always some other program that — who knows? — just might mean a difference.

But now, it's becoming more mainstream across the country. Interestingly enough, Asian countries such as South Korea -- where almost all students also attend so-called "cram schools" after normal school hours -- are trying to crack down on excessive tutoring so that kids can be more like kids.

There's also the issue of costs: The Times says parents pay $200 to $300 a month for their toddlers to spend up to an hour twice a week being tutored at a Junior Kumon center. Not every family can afford such a price, though I also know parents are willing to sacrifice personal needs so that they can help their children (as my parents and others have done).

This article reminds me of a discussion that I had with my sister, whose oldest son tested into gifted and talented. And he's only in first grade! Apparently, there is G&T for kindergarten students as well. She's debating whether to put my nephew into the gifted and talented program.

Are we putting too much emphasis on accomplishments so early on in a child's life? I'd love to hear from parents who have toddlers in tutoring sessions and those who do not.

Do you have mixed feelings about this as I do?

Posted by Hanah Cho at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Monday reads, School's In
        

Technology and social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and the like are making it easier for families and friends to keep in touch.

That couldn't be truer as grandparents connecting with their grandkids, a trend that the Wall Street Journal explores:

Certainly, it's nothing new that kids are plugging in and staying connected. But what is new is that it may be a grandparent on the other end of that virtual tin can—and that technology is bridging the vast age and distance gap that has long divided the generations.

Here's what one expert told the WSJ on how the new connection between the techno-savvy grandparents and their grandkids are changing relationships:

"When the baby boomers went to college and moved away, we lost an entire generation of connection between grandparents and grandchildren. They saw each other once or twice a year, and there was a real disconnect," says Andrew Carle, professor and director of the Program in Senior Housing Administration at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

"Now with technology, we are regenerating those bonds. People say technology is so impersonal, but we are watching it being used to reconnect one of the most personal and important relationships of the species."

My mother-in-law is already an active Facebook user, who constantly posts photos of Jake via her iPhone whenever she visits. So I can imagine she and Jake staying connected daily with whatever is the latest technology when he gets older.

Are you finding that your kids are connecting with their grandparents through Facebook and other social media? Is there a downside to this type of connection? Or have relationships gotten stronger?

Posted by Hanah Cho at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Here are plenty of conversation starters to start off your week.

The Wall Street Journal reflects on where things stand with the so-called mommy track and how that once-derided label has proven true for many women.

I'm going to pay more attention to food label after reading this Washington Post article on food dyes and the potential connections to hyperactivity in children.

Now, federal regulators are reexamining artificial ingredients they have long deemed to be safe, prompted by scientific studies suggesting that color additives might be linked to hyperactivity in children and other health effects. On Wednesday, an advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration will begin a two-day meeting to discuss the science behind artificial dyes and whether the government ought to restrict their use.

For something a little more light-hearted, check out my colleague Jill Rosen's story on the Girl Scouts taking selling these ubiquitous cookies a technological notch:

Facebook? Twitter? YouTube? Cookie-hawking Scouts have swarmed them all. They're taking to blogs and blitzing folks with emailed overtures from a custom program called Cookie Club. They're also debuting an iPhone app called the Cookie Finder that points customers hungry for Samoas and Tagalongs in the direction of the nearest sale.

Enjoy and happy Monday!

Posted by Hanah Cho at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Happy Monday!

Here is a thought-provoking commentary to start off your week:

Are girls dressed too provocatively? And why do mothers allow their teenage daughters to dress like that? One author asks this question in a piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Discussing shopping for prom dresses, Jennifer Moses writes:

Having done this now for two years with my own daughter, I continue to be amazed by the plunging necklines, built-in push-up bras, spangles, feathers, slits and peek-a-boos. And try finding a pair of sufficiently "prommish" shoes designed with less than a 2-inch heel.

All of which brings me to a question: Why do so many of us not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this—like prostitutes, if we're being honest with ourselves—but pay for them to do it with our AmEx cards?

Moses offers her theory:

It has to do with how conflicted my own generation of women is about our own past, when many of us behaved in ways that we now regret. A woman I know, with two mature daughters, said, "If I could do it again, I wouldn't even have slept with my own husband before marriage. Sex is the most powerful thing there is, and our generation, what did we know?"

I'd love some thoughts and comments from mothers of daughters. Do you find yourself conflicted about the way your daughter dresses?

Posted by Hanah Cho at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Happy V-day, readers!

In celebration of love, family and all the good stuff, here's a heartwarming story about a military couple.

Leaving their children in the care of Amber’s parents, the couple spent 15 months together in Iraq as part of the surge from 2007 to 2008; they were home until 2009, and then headed back until the end of last year. He pushed supplies out ahead of advancing platoons. She stayed on base and ensured that radios were encrypted. They bunked together when there was space available, and shared tents with others of their own sex when it wasn’t. Last Valentine’s Day Christopher procured a few bottles of sparkling grape juice from the canteen and asked a friend, who worked in the kitchen, to bake a cake.

“Him being here has made this deployment easier because it’s like having your best friend with you all the time,” Amber said in an article about military marriage on the Army’s Web site www.army.mil in late fall. “To have that relationship with you physically and emotionally during a deployment is amazing.”

Less than “amazing” was the stress of keeping in touch with their children eight to ten time zones away. Amber and Christopher called home weekly, and sent letters at least that often, too. They kept their Facebook pages updated with photos, and made sure that a package arrived in time for each holiday. On the other end, Amber’s parents stuck to the house rules and daily schedules that the children already knew.

Thanks to the Motherlode blog for this reminder of what Valentine Day's is all about.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Monday reads
        

The New York Times Magazine has taken a critical look at assumptions and conflicting data and research on symptons of shaken-baby syndrome -- and the questions they have raised in court as caretakers and others have been convicted of child abuse and more serious crimes.

As the diagnosis of shaken-baby syndrome took hold in medicine, and prosecutors began to bring charges based on it, doctors testified that shaking could generate the same terrible force as throwing a child from a second-­story window. It turned out they were wrong. In 1987, a neurosurgeon named Ann-Christine Duhaime published a paper that included the autopsy results of 13 babies with symptoms associated with shaken-baby syndrome. In all of them she found evidence of trauma that was actually caused by impact. She teamed up with biomechanical engineers to create infant-sized dummies equipped with sensors to measure acceleration.“We shook them as hard as we could, and we thought something was wrong, because the accelerations we measured were unexpectedly low,” Duhaime says. Instead, the force level shot up when the testers released the dummies after shaking them, even if they hit a soft surface like a bed or a couch.

Later experiments confirmed this finding and have made some doctors and biomechanical engineers skeptical that shaking alone can cause severe brain damage or death. At the same time, the experiments have not ruled this out, Duhaime says. Among other things, the dummies are not live children, and while their heads and necks can exhibit the effects of acceleration, impact on brain tissue is still hard to model.

Many doctors who treat child abuse say that decades of clinical observation, as well as confessions, show that it’s possible for shaking alone to cause the triad of subdural and retinal bleeding and brain swelling. A 2009 position paper from the American Academy of Pediatrics, written by Cindy Christian, recommends that doctors use the more general term “abusive head trauma” but also calls shaking an “important mechanism” of such trauma. Many doctors who testify for the defense agree that shaking could in theory cause the triad of symptoms but only if there is an injury to the neck or spinal cord, “where the breathing center is,” as one doctor puts it. It’s the absence of signs of this kind of an injury that makes some shaken-baby cases particularly fraught.

It's a sad story all around. The author interviews caretakers accused and convicted of shaking babies, some of whom had died, as well as families who are dealing with the aftermath. Just like the conflicting medical data, there's no easy solution, answer or conclusion when you read this story.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Monday reads
        

As the eldest daughter of first-generation immigrants, my mom was pretty strict. That meant no dating in high school, focusing on school -- aka getting straight A's -- and not getting in any sort of trouble.

So, reading Amy Chua's Wall Street Journal essay on "why Chinese mothers are superior" was amusing and familiar.

Chua's two daughters are not allowed to date in high school, get any grade below an A, watch TV or play on the computer, attend a sleepover, choose their own extracurricular activities, among other don't's.

Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.

Many readers were offended and outraged by Chua's generalizations and stereotypes, as the comments demonstrate. I do wonder if Chua exaggerates somewhat to make her points.

I have mixed feelings. My mom wasn't as strict as Chua. But I did bemoan the fact that my mom wasn't like my friend's parents, who were more lax. At the same time, it was second nature to me that I would do well in school, attend college and make something of myself. My parents expected that, and I expected that of myself. 

Take a read, and leave your thoughts here.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 9:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Categories: Monday reads
        

How far would you go to have a child?

For one couple, it took two surrogates and one egg donor and a swirl of emotions. The couple now have two children, who they refer to as "twiblings." 

Check out this fascinating New York Times Magazine story on this couple's journey in this week's Monday Reading:  

There is also no word to describe our children’s relationship with each other. Our children were born five days apart — a fact that cannot be easily explained. When people press me about their status (“But are they really twins?”), the answer gets long. The word “twins” usually refers to siblings who shared a womb. But to call them just “siblings” instead of “twins” also raises questions because full genetic siblings are ordinarily at least nine months apart. And our children could be considered the same age because they were conceived at the same time (in the lab) and the embryos were transferred at the same time. If the person continues to quibble about whether they really qualify as twins (as, surprisingly, people often do), instead of asking why it matters, I announce airily that they are “twiblings.”

Their story touches on everything imaginable, from being a first-time parent to dealing with their children's gestational carriers and egg donor to the moral, medical and ethical implications.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Today's Monday Reading features guest blogger Mark Osteen, professor of English at Loyola University in Baltimore and father of Cameron, who has autism. Osteen recently wrote a memoir about his family's struggles and triumphs with living with autism.

A recent story in The Baltimore Sun describes a new form of MRI that uses brain scans to detect autism. This is good news because it might allow autistic children and their parents to start treatments sooner. As the father of an autistic son, I would have welcomed this test, had it been available two decades ago, when my son Cameron was a child. But would the test have made a significant difference to Cam’s life? Probably not.

There has been a lot of media coverage of the rise in autism diagnoses and of the latest fad “cures,” none of which really cures autism. The fact is, the vast majority of autistic children grow up to be autistic adults. There are too many stories in the media about diagnosis and cure, and not nearly enough about the day-to-day lives of autistic people and their families.

But my wife Leslie and I know how painful it is to watch your child suffer when he can’t say what he wants or feels, when he’s tortured by sensory overload, when he feels isolated and friendless. And it’s only natural that parents try to spare their children from such pain. But at some point, you have to accept your child as he is, instead of as a vessel for your own desires. We learned this the hard way, and I’ve told about our struggle in my new book, One of Us: A Family’s Life with Autism (University of Missouri Press). You can read more about it at http://oneofusbook.com/, and at http://press.umsystem.edu/media/osteen.htm.

Continue reading "Monday reading: A family's life with autism" »

Posted by Hanah Cho at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Wow.

You must, have to, need to read this Washington Post story on a "mother's joy and a family's sorrow."

Where do I start?

I won't give away the ending, but it's a story about a mom's love, family, friends, joy, sorrow, told in such a unique way that reflects our fascination with social media.

Feel free to leave comments.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Playground bullying is hard enough but what happens when bullying goes viral? 

Check out this fascinating and frightening story by The New York Times on parents struggling to deal with cyberbullying:

It is difficult enough to support one’s child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the lawlessness of the Internet, its potential for casual, breathtaking cruelty, and its capacity to cloak a bully’s identity all present slippery new challenges to this transitional generation of analog parents.

Desperate to protect their children, parents are floundering even as they scramble to catch up with the technological sophistication of the next generation.

The article talks to parents who have turned to schools and law enforcement to get to the bottom of who's bullying their kids online. The story also talks about the very awkward etiquette of dealing with parents of the apparent offenders when they are uncovered.

Then there's the issue of monitoring your child's computer usage. To what extent would you go as a parent?  

How far would you go to get to the bottom of things if your child is being bullied online? What role do schools and law enforcement have in safeguarding our children?

It's a long article, but it's worth the read. Let me know what you think.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)
Categories: Monday reads
        

I know, I'm two days late on this week's Monday reads.

My husband jokes that we need to get baby J. in some sports league like right now. But it's no joke for some parents.

There are exercise videos for babies as young as six months, and there are companies that cater to grooming baby and toddler athletes, according to The New York Times.

Future Robinson Canos and Sidney Crosbys are getting their start in sports earlier than ever. Kindergartners play in soccer leagues and at an annual T-Ball World Series in Milton, Fla. But now children are being groomed as athletes before they can walk.

The growing competition in marketing baby sports DVDs includes companies with names like athleticBaby and Baby Goes Pro. Even experts in youth sports seem startled that the age of entry has dipped so low.

One doctor told the paper that he sees no advantage in exposing babies to sports and cautioned about the potential for injuries at such an early age.

Gyms and other entrepreneurs behind such businesses are not making claims that your baby will turn into a professional athletes. And the parents who were interviewed for the story say they want to find an outlet for their children to have fun.

Do you find this alarming or is it harmless? Let us know about your experience if you have a baby or toddler in an exercise/sports program.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Is there such a thing as too much technology for our children, who don't know a life without cell phones, iPads and wireless Internet?

What's the line between technology becoming a distraction and making sure our kids have the 21st Century skills and tools to succeed in this modern society?

A New York Times article explores how growing up digitally connected will impact our kids' brains:

Students have always faced distractions and time-wasters. But computers and cellphones, and the constant stream of stimuli they offer, pose a profound new challenge to focusing and learning.

Researchers say the lure of these technologies, while it affects adults too, is particularly powerful for young people. The risk, they say, is that developing brains can become more easily habituated than adult brains to constantly switching tasks — and less able to sustain attention.

... But even as some parents and educators express unease about students’ digital diets, they are intensifying efforts to use technology in the classroom, seeing it as a way to connect with students and give them essential skills. Across the country, schools are equipping themselves with computers, Internet access and mobile devices so they can teach on the students’ technological territory.

It's an interesting dilemma because I'm sure parents struggle with this issue at home, too. What boundaries do you set? How do you enforce it?

The NYT story is long but it's worth the read. Let us know how you manage the digital line with your kids.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Is there tension at your workplace between parents and non-parents? Do you think parents get preferential treatment?

Katherine Reynolds Lewis (a fabulous journalist, by the way) explores the tension that's mounting in some workplaces in The Fiscal Times.

On one side: parents; on the other: childless people. Productivity demands have caused increased stress for all workers who feel they’re doing their job and two others; yet it’s often the child-free employees who pick up the slack because of a co-worker's flexible schedule, holiday plans or maternity leave. In this time of tight budgets and lean staffing the left-behinds are saying “enough.” They flock to online forums like The Childfree Life and STFU Parents to vent about being taken for granted because they have no children.

Lewis notes work-life flexibility options offered by many employers are geared toward being family friendly and run the risk of alienating child-free workers.

"The best employers provide flexibility equitably," said Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute.  "Where the person with a kid might need to take off the day after Thanksgiving, the person without children may have a friend who is ill. None of us are without personal responsibilities."

Before becoming a parent, I worked long hours, and I often worked holidays or the days surrounding the holidays -- not because I was childless but because vacations were based on seniority.

Now that I'm a parent, I have adjusted my schedule somewhat to accommodate J.'s daycare schedule. But I get my work done and check in from home to make sure I'm not missing anything.

As Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute says, flexibility should be equal.

What do you think?

Take the poll below.

Updated 2 p.m.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (16)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Novelist Erica Jong's take on modern motherhood and attachment parenting has generated plenty of debate, including on this blog.

Check out the New York Times Motherlode blog, where supporters of attachment parenting respond to Jong's essay.

In turn, Jong responds.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Categories: Monday reads, Parenting in general
        

An essay by novelist Erica Jong this past weekend in the Wall Street Journal is a must-read.

Jong rails against "attachment parenting" where you respond to your baby's every need. Jong argues this type of parenting is a trap for mothers.  

Attachment parenting, especially when combined with environmental correctness, has encouraged female victimization. Women feel not only that they must be ever-present for their children but also that they must breast-feed, make their own baby food and eschew disposable diapers. It's a prison for mothers, and it represents as much of a backlash against women's freedom as the right-to-life movement.

You may not agree with everything she says, but her points are thought-provoking.

Most moms that I know do the best they can, given their circumstances, whether they are working or stay-at-home moms. But I understand the pressures -- and guilt! -- moms face in these modern times, especially when celebrities appear to have become the models of motherhood.

Jong ends her essay with this: "We need to be released from guilt about our children, not further bound by it. We need someone to say: Do the best you can. There are no rules."

I agree with that. What do you think?

Posted by Hanah Cho at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Categories: Monday reads
        

Check out these two interesting stories over the weekend on parenting:

Writer Renee Bacher confesses to being a helicopter mom. I used to write about the notion of parents hovering over their children like helicopters before I became a mom, and now I understand how hard it could be to let go. I said I would never become one of those parents who brag about their kids or snap pictures of them for every occasion, but I'm guilty of those charges.

The second article talks about how being a mom is now an advantage in politics.

In an age when “the mommy brain” is now considered a greatly superior organ — uniquely suited for multitasking, specialty-schooled in the challenges of diplomacy and budgeting, grounded in the can-do here and now rather than in the hopelessly abstract or esoteric — being a mom (the "just" has been dropped) is now frequently spun as a prime career asset, particularly in the world of politics.

Posted by Hanah Cho at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Monday reads