appropriate age - music / ballet class

[Jean]

Hi,
For those with experience, at what age did you send your child to
music and ballet class? Did she benefit from it or you think you could
have waited for another year. Thanks.

Regards
Jo

[Karen G]

We started our first daughter in gymnastics at 3 and our second daughter
in a dance class at 3. Prior to age 3, most of the children I know do
not have the attention span to follow instructions for 30 minutes or
more. At 3, they seem to gain a desire to learn independently.

So far so good. The oldest in gymnastics has been at it for 18 months.
She still shows a great deal of enthusiasm and interest. She has asked
to continue the class when she starts preschool in the fall.

The younger girl has not been in her class as long, but she very much
enjoyed being a part of the spring recital. She sat through some very
long rehearsals (3+ hours) and enjoyed every minute of it.

Karen

[LarryDoc]

In article >,
(Jean) wrote:

> Hi,
> For those with experience, at what age did you send your child to
> music and ballet class? Did she benefit from it or you think you could
> have waited for another year. Thanks.
>
> Regards
> Jo
>

DD, now almost 7: Ballet age 3 to present, not continuing
Jazz dance age 6 to present, continuing (she likes it better)
Gymnnastics sporatically beginning age 4
Piano in house, formal lessons to start soon.

I think the age 3-5 period is mostly for encouraging motor development,
posture and poise. It seems that around 5, the kids really get into the
structure and body control (and have the patience to do it!) and get
into the dance. Our DD likes the different energy of Jazz Dance class.
Not to mention the costumes!

--Larry

--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care

The Eyecare Connection
http//www.eyecarecontacts.com
larrydoc at m a c.c o m

[Jeff Utz]

Kids who take the suzuki method to learn violin start as young as 2 to 2 1/2
http://suzukimusicacademy.com/indexpage2.htm

[Nevermind]

Started my son (now 8.5) with piano lessons at 4. NO, we aren't pushy
parents; the kid was and is a music-head and was/is also an advanced
learner and was always banging around on the piano and trying to learn
songs and wanted to take lessons. I looked hard for and found a
teacher with the same attitude as I had: that this was for FUN; that
no 4 YO needs formal music lessons; and that it would end when he no
longer wanted to do it. He thoroughly enjoyed the lessons for about 4
months, during which time he learned to play many of his favorite
songs (the teacher let him choose whatever songs he wanted to learn,
and then wrote the notes out for him). He was very proud of himself
for being able to play them, too. When he started resisting the
lessons (by being difficult with the teacher and refusing to ever
practice the songs at home) we promptly stopped the lessons and he has
ever since looked back on them as a fun experience.

I did, however, want him to take music lessons "for real" at some
point. He re-started lessons in the middle of first grade (6.75
years). he wanted to, but even if he hadn't, at that age (unlike at
4), I probably would have forced the issue. I wanted him to go back to
piano, but he insisted it be guitar lessons, and he is now highly
committed to the guitar, but also picks at the piano, the drums, etc.

We started my DD (now 5) with ballet lessons when she was 3.5 (it was
a 3-5 YO pre-ballet class, which was later revised into a 4-5 YO
pre-ballet class ). I think she was a bit young, but there were other
girls that age who did better than she did, so it might have been just
her. I stopped them over a summer, and when she started up again as a
young 4 YO, both the teacher and I saw a big difference. Those 4
months of physical development really mattered to my DD. YMMV. I had
to stop them again at 4.5 because of financial issues; I'm sure she
would have continued to love them, and I liked the
physicality/exercise/stretching aspects of it. Now, she wants to try
gymnastics. I think 4 and 5 YO is just perfect for ballet because
girls that age tend to be so into it. However, it needs to be the
right class. Not just any ballet teacher can manage to keep kids that
young *both* thrilled to be little ballerinas *and* focused for those
30 or 45 minutes on doing what the teacher says. I must say that my
DD's ballet classes were among the most adorable things I've ever seen
in my life.

(Jean) wrote in message >...
> Hi,
> For those with experience, at what age did you send your child to
> music and ballet class? Did she benefit from it or you think you could
> have waited for another year. Thanks.
>
> Regards
> Jo

[K, T, E & N]

And it's a terrible pain for their future teachers to undo all that the
"suzuki method" does to the little minds.

My sister-in-law is a violin teacher of kids to adults. She's been a
concert violinist and has a masters degree in music. She hates teaching
kids that have been started on 'suzuki' and starts them just like they've
never seen a violin before - she says they're sometimes worse than kids that
have never had a violin in their hands.

Kim

[Astromum]

K, T, E & N wrote:
> And it's a terrible pain for their future teachers to undo all that the
> "suzuki method" does to the little minds.
>
> My sister-in-law is a violin teacher of kids to adults. She's been a
> concert violinist and has a masters degree in music. She hates teaching
> kids that have been started on 'suzuki' and starts them just like they've
> never seen a violin before - she says they're sometimes worse than kids that
> have never had a violin in their hands.
>

That strongly depends on the teacher. I've seen Suzuki method being
used and abused, and if used properly it can be a worthwhile addition
to learning young children play music. Most other methods are way too
focused on visual input (like reading sheet music) and translating
that into movement. Many musical kids that are taught like that will
turn into 'robotic' players. Suzuki is one of the few where the music
comes first and print comes later. If combined with proper technique
exercises (which are often lacking with the 'bad' teachers), it can be
an excellent method. Just for the record: I studied piano.

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

[David desJardins]

Jean writes:
> For those with experience, at what age did you send your child to
> music and ballet class? Did she benefit from it or you think you could
> have waited for another year. Thanks.

My b/g twins are not quite 3, and they like their dance class. As for
waiting, honestly, I'd rather send them to such classes when they are
younger than when they are older, because activities like ballet for
older children can sometimes turn into an obsessive competition to
"improve", where the other children are spending so much time practicing
that they have to do the same, interfering with the rest of their life.
Rather than just a fun thing to do, which will hopefully develop into an
interest but not an obsession.

David desJardins

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Jean > wrote:
>Hi,
>For those with experience, at what age did you send your child to
>music and ballet class? Did she benefit from it or you think you could
>have waited for another year. Thanks.
>

I have been taking my youngest to a (parent & child) music class
since just before he turned 2. This is a Kindermusik class intended
for children 18 mos. to 3.5 years, and I found it very developmentally
appropriate.

This child has always had a particular interest in music, and I think
he enjoyed the classes, though he didn't start participating actively
until near the end of the session. He clearly absorbed a lot though
and always seemed to enjoy going.

Was it necessary? Of course not. I have no idea if he experienced any
long-term benefits from it. But we enjoyed the time on different music
activities than I might have thought of on my own, and seemed to begin
to enjoy the social aspects of playing music games with other kids present
as well.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Jean > wrote:
>Hi,
>For those with experience, at what age did you send your child to
>music and ballet class? Did she benefit from it or you think you could
>have waited for another year. Thanks.

For instrumental music, we started both the older boys last year.

Matthew started piano at 6.25 years. He was in a group pre-piano class
that involved a lot of playing by ear and solfege, as well as work on
rhythm, etc. It was the first year of a two-year program. He was the
oldest in the group and has progressed faster than the others, so at
his teacher's advice, we are pulling him out of group lessons and going
to private. He learned a lot. The class was advertised for 4.5 - 7yos
but Matthew seemed to be at an optimal age for it. The younger kids
(5 to 5.75yo when starting) really didn't seem to get nearly as much out
of it.

Ryan started guitar at 9yo. He enjoyed it but we didn't have a great
match with his teacher, and we ended up terminating his lessons before
the end of the session. He wants to start again in the fall. He's
learned to read music on the treble clef and some basic guitar skills.

We don't have ballet or dance classes in town. Matthew did gymnastics
from 2.75 to about 4 years, and Ryan from 5.5 to 6.75, when the schedule
stopped fitting well with ours. They both enjoyed that. I'd take
Evan to a dance or gymnastics class if there were one available for him,
but right now there isn't anything.

For what it's worth, Ryan and Matthew started Tae Kwon Do at 7 and 4 years,
respectively. Matthew quit at 6, Ryan is still going and has his sights
set on a black belt. I mention this because TKD involves a lot of highly
choreographed patterns that often seem more like ballet than anything else;
I think many of the skills involved are similar.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[Karen G]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:38:47 EDT, (Robyn
Kozierok) wrote:

>Matthew started piano at 6.25 years. He was in a group pre-piano class
>that involved a lot of playing by ear and solfege, as well as work on
>rhythm, etc. It was the first year of a two-year program. He was the
>oldest in the group and has progressed faster than the others, so at
>his teacher's advice, we are pulling him out of group lessons and going
>to private. He learned a lot. The class was advertised for 4.5 - 7yos
>but Matthew seemed to be at an optimal age for it. The younger kids
>(5 to 5.75yo when starting) really didn't seem to get nearly as much out
>of it.

How much of the pre-piano is reading music at this age. I am
considering starting my daughter next summer on the piano, but I may try
to teach her myself. I would like to find and appropriate curriculum.
Any suggestions?

Karen

PS How many kids are in the group class?

[David desJardins]

Elizabeth Gardner writes:
> The ones who get obsessed with practicing (as opposed to the ones who
> are kept to a strict practice schedule by obsessed parents) are in the
> minority, and often are the ones that are truly gifted at whatever the
> activity is. In these cases, obsession isn't something undesirable or
> avoidable--it's their destiny.

I don't agree at all about "destiny". Take a world-class ballerina, and
put her in a different environment where she never gets exposed to
ballet, and she would become something totally different. She wouldn't
necessarily discover ballet just because she's good at it, nor, even if
she were exposed to ballet, would she necessarily develop the
"obsession" necessary to develop her talents, if her environment and
parenting led her in a different direction.

If my daughter had the talent to be a world-class ballerina, I still
wouldn't necessarily want her to, nor would I agree that it's her
inevitable "destiny". Making decisions about what's good for children
is what parents do.

David desJardins

[Chris Smith]

David desJardins wrote:
> If my daughter had the talent to be a world-class ballerina, I still
> wouldn't necessarily want her to, nor would I agree that it's her
> inevitable "destiny". Making decisions about what's good for children
> is what parents do.

Sure, agreed on the "destiny" bit. On the other hand, people answer
questions relative to their experience. Not trying to speak for the OP,
my experience is that it's rare to see kids encouraged to develop unique
skills deeply. I see way too much of kids being sent to half a dozen
"enrichment activities" from music lessons to two different team sports
plus gymnastics and dance, and not being allowed to really commit to any
of them because they have to keep up the schedule.

These kids learn that it's too much of a pain to learn skills and be
extraordinarily good at something, so they should probe around for
natural talent and enjoy it as long as it lasts, and then move on. I
happen to organize a competitive science activity, and I run across all
sorts of kids who want to look into some activities for a few hours a
week for a while, and then they either get lucky or just proclaim that
they "aren't good at that kind of thing" and wander off.

That bothers me a lot. Maybe I'm projecting a bit on this subthread,
but I read Elizabeth Gardner's post with a lot of agreement and
sympathy, despite my believing that it's possible for a parent to change
things. The point is, if a kid wants to develop a skill and become
really good at something, I see that as a positive development. Only
when the kid decides that about several skills and threatens to end up
overcommitted would I intervene.

[Note: I realize this phenomenon is probably a bit less common in
general society; I know mostly homeschooled kids because of my
involvement in a group in town here, and that influences this a lot.
Nevertheless, I think there are plentiful examples of this same thing
happening in traditionally schooled families.]

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[illecebra]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:37:45 -0400, Chris Smith wrote:

<snip>
> I see way too much of kids being sent to half a dozen "enrichment
> activities" from music lessons to two different team sports plus
> gymnastics and dance, and not being allowed to really commit to any of
> them because they have to keep up the schedule.
>
> These kids learn that it's too much of a pain to learn skills and be
> extraordinarily good at something, so they should probe around for
> natural talent and enjoy it as long as it lasts, and then move on. I
> happen to organize a competitive science activity, and I run across all
> sorts of kids who want to look into some activities for a few hours a
> week for a while, and then they either get lucky or just proclaim that
> they "aren't good at that kind of thing" and wander off. <snip>

I have to disagree with you here. I was what most people would have
considered an "overcommitted kid". At age 14, I was in school full time,
worked a regular job on Fri., Sat., and Sun. nights, babysat weeknights
and sunday afternoons, worked with two drug abuse prevention programs,
wrote for my high school paper (occassional articles when I had time, not
a column), was in chess club, tutored programming, volunteered at my old
grade school working with special needs kids and helping maintain the
computer system, was on both JV and Varsity forensics, and was active in
local politics lobbying for more funds and support for education and drug
abuse prevention. Somewhere in there, I even managed to have some
semblance of a social life.

I was always hopping, but I loved it. That year's activities were just a
convenient example: I was equally swamped every year. Some people need to
be busy to be happy, and I am one of those people. I developed many
wonderful skills, and didn't ever feel pulled in too many directions.

I did have the advantage that all of my activities played into one
another. My drug abuse prevention programs, time at the gradeschool, and
babysitting job all involved working with kids. The forensics team,
political activities, journalism experience, drug abuse prevention
programs, and teaching activities all helped my communications skills
grow. Forensics, politics, and chess all required me to think on my feet
and be quick to adapt. Nothing I did was in isolation from anything else
I did.

Unless your child is foundering while trying to juggle more than they can
handle, seriously consider letting him/her decide what pace he/she works
best at.

Just my two cents

Susan

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
Chris Smith > wrote:

>David desJardins wrote:
>> If my daughter had the talent to be a world-class ballerina, I still
>> wouldn't necessarily want her to, nor would I agree that it's her
>> inevitable "destiny". Making decisions about what's good for children
>> is what parents do.
>
Sometimes though kids do want to focus on some particular thing. I've
seen this both in my own kids and in other people's kids. The
question is really - does the kid have the talent to be world-class
and if not how can we get them to accept this.

DD#2 decided when she was 6 that she wanted to swim competitively.
She bugged me for 2 years until I found a swim team that she could
join, and it was a real pain to get to practice as it was a
significant distance (half hour drive) from us and at a kind of
difficult time. I got into coaching swimming because the pool was too
far away from the house for me to do anything but stay at the pool -
I'd have had to turn around and go back for her as soon as I got home
if I returned home.

Eventually she got all the other kids involved because it was far
easier for me to have them all doing the same thing (practice was the
same time for all age groups) especially after I started coaching.
However none of my kids were world-class. They were useful team
swimmers but were never more than B time.

I did have one boy on my team who did more or less the same thing - he
bugged his parents from the time he was 6. He didn't seem to me to be
especially talented either, but his goal was to be on the Olympic
team, and he in fact did that and swam in the consolation final in the
Barcelona Olympics. He didn't medal, but I'd say that being in the
top 20 in the world was world class.

I also had swimmers on my teams who were extremely talented. They
could win any race on our level even in their least favored strokes.
But sometimes these kids wouldn't practice hard and wouldn't try hard
because they could win without doing so. They might have been world
class, but they didn't have the focus to do so. That's OK too.
Sometimes they had another sport that they excelled in and were more
interested in practicing and sometimes not.

I also had kids who seemed to be talented but whose parents were
pushing them quite a bit. Sometimes these people felt that my
coaching wasn't good enough for their child. None of their children
ever made a name for themselves or became world class that I know of.

>Sure, agreed on the "destiny" bit. On the other hand, people answer
>questions relative to their experience. Not trying to speak for the OP,
>my experience is that it's rare to see kids encouraged to develop unique
>skills deeply. I see way too much of kids being sent to half a dozen
>"enrichment activities" from music lessons to two different team sports
>plus gymnastics and dance, and not being allowed to really commit to any
>of them because they have to keep up the schedule.

Why should they commit to something that they aren't really interested
in? The whole point of doing varied activities is that you get
different experiences and develop a certain amount of facility - if
the kid isn't interested enough to want to go deeper, why blame the
parent for over scheduling? IME it is far more common for the parent
to push a kid that isn't that interested then it is for the kid to not
be able to commit because of the parent. It just isn't that easy to
MAKE a kid practice or go to something that they don't want to do.
>
>These kids learn that it's too much of a pain to learn skills and be
>extraordinarily good at something, so they should probe around for
>natural talent and enjoy it as long as it lasts, and then move on. I

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. Why not enjoy a natural
talent? There's no reason for a kid or anyone to suffer learning
something that doesn't interest them no matter what talent they have.

>happen to organize a competitive science activity, and I run across all
>sorts of kids who want to look into some activities for a few hours a
>week for a while, and then they either get lucky or just proclaim that
>they "aren't good at that kind of thing" and wander off.

I haven't been involved in 'competitive science' and don't really know
what that is.
>
>That bothers me a lot. Maybe I'm projecting a bit on this subthread,
>but I read Elizabeth Gardner's post with a lot of agreement and
>sympathy, despite my believing that it's possible for a parent to change
>things. The point is, if a kid wants to develop a skill and become
>really good at something, I see that as a positive development. Only
>when the kid decides that about several skills and threatens to end up
>overcommitted would I intervene.
>
>[Note: I realize this phenomenon is probably a bit less common in
>general society; I know mostly homeschooled kids because of my
>involvement in a group in town here, and that influences this a lot.
>Nevertheless, I think there are plentiful examples of this same thing
>happening in traditionally schooled families.]

grandma Rosalie

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Karen G > wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:38:47 EDT, (Robyn
>Kozierok) wrote:
>
>>Matthew started piano at 6.25 years. He was in a group pre-piano class
>>that involved a lot of playing by ear and solfege, as well as work on
>>rhythm, etc. It was the first year of a two-year program. He was the
>>oldest in the group and has progressed faster than the others, so at
>>his teacher's advice, we are pulling him out of group lessons and going
>>to private. He learned a lot. The class was advertised for 4.5 - 7yos
>>but Matthew seemed to be at an optimal age for it. The younger kids
>>(5 to 5.75yo when starting) really didn't seem to get nearly as much out
>>of it.
>
>How much of the pre-piano is reading music at this age. I am
>considering starting my daughter next summer on the piano, but I may try
>to teach her myself. I would like to find and appropriate curriculum.
>Any suggestions?

I believe Matthew's group was 6 kids. They had enough pianos/keyboards
in the room for each kid to have their own.

The curriculum was MusikGarten, which I believe is an offshoot of
KinderMusik (some of their stuff is religiously oriented, I believe;
this pre-piano course isn't). It was called something like "Music
Makers at the Keyboard". The materials were fairly expensive and
included a workbook and 2 CD's -- a listening CD and a practice CD. In
theory, they spend about half the year playing by ear and then move
into reading the music, but Matt's group really didn't get into the
reading music much as most or the kids just weren't ready for that.
Matt was the only one who learned to play with 2 hands, though the
program includes that early on. The CDs are good. For the songs they
will play, they first play/sing the song, then sing the solfege
(Do-do-do sol-sol-sol do-do-do-sol, etc...) They learn how to play
sol-mi-do in several different keys/positions at first, so they can
play their songs in different keys. I found the approach really
interesting and neat, and seemed to work really well for Matt.

--Robyn

[David desJardins]

Chris Smith writes:
> That bothers me a lot. Maybe I'm projecting a bit on this subthread,
> but I read Elizabeth Gardner's post with a lot of agreement and
> sympathy, despite my believing that it's possible for a parent to change
> things. The point is, if a kid wants to develop a skill and become
> really good at something, I see that as a positive development.

Well, I think it depends a lot on what the skill is. Suppose the child
wants to become really good at Quake III. OK, she can win computer game
tournaments, but does that have so much value that you want to encourage
that?

That example is intentionally artificial to get people to see the point.
But I tend to feel the same way about most sports. They have intrinsic
value (from a fitness and health point of view) in moderation, but
there's no particular value in overdoing them just to be "really good".

Music and ballet (from the subject of this thread) are more nuanced. I
can see value in doing those well (as a career, or in order to be able
to perform for the entertainment of others), but much of the value that
I see from them mostly would be gained from moderate involvement (e.g.,
I think music study can help one develop an appreciation of music, and
also some logical and symbolic reasoning skills, and perhaps some finger
dexterity and coordination; ballet, in moderation, can be a good way to
develop fitness [although it may well damage one's health when done to
excess], and may also help develop an appreciation for dance and music).

I guess I'm far more interested in having my own children do several of
these things in moderation, than to obsessively participate in one of
them. (I can easily imagine 10+ hours/week of ballet practice and drill
at age 8 or so, as a path to becoming a really serious ballerina, which
I think is too much for that age from the point of view of overall
development, as well as interfering with family life. While I'm not
specifically familiar with ballet schools, I know that other physical
activities, e.g., many sports, often require that level of commitment
from children who want to become "really good".)

David desJardins

[Banty]

In article >, David desJardins says...
>
>
>I guess I'm far more interested in having my own children do several of
>these things in moderation, than to obsessively participate in one of
>them. (I can easily imagine 10+ hours/week of ballet practice and drill
>at age 8 or so, as a path to becoming a really serious ballerina, which
>I think is too much for that age from the point of view of overall
>development, as well as interfering with family life. While I'm not
>specifically familiar with ballet schools, I know that other physical
>activities, e.g., many sports, often require that level of commitment
>from children who want to become "really good".)
>
> David desJardins
>

How would you approach it if one of your children wanted to concentrate on one
thing, and it were something like ballet?

Banty

[Chris Smith]

David desJardins wrote:
> I guess I'm far more interested in having my own children do several of
> these things in moderation, than to obsessively participate in one of
> them.

We probably aren't in disagreement, of course, but rather focusing on
different aspects of the same issue. If we wanted to meaningfully
disagree, both of us would have to stop using judgement-relative terms
like "moderation" and "obsession" and "casual" and start giving absolute
measurements of committment that we consider appropriate or
inappropriate. I can't very say that "moderation" is bad and
"obsession" is good, because the words themselves imply the value
judgements.

The problem I see, in real life, is that a lot of kids (mostly from a
particular homeschool support group I am involved with) DO claim to be
interested in something specific, sign up for some cooperative classes
on it for an hour a week for about eight or nine weeks, and then decide
that it's not fun for them that way, because they are digging below the
glamorous surface of something and getting into the part that requires
effort. I imagine the same kind of thing happens when kids that are
fascinated with ballerinas find out that some dance steps are difficult
or that they don't look graceful and poised after practicing for a
month, or when a kid that really likes the idea of figure skating
discovers that they have a good bit of practice to go before they will
bedoing jumps and twirls.

Of course, I also see kids who are a bit intrigued and show up to see if
it catches their fancy, and leave when they find that it doesn't. These
kids don't worry me. What worries me is the kids who come and talk
about how chemistry (for example, because that's the kind of activity
I'm mostly involved in) is their passion and they have been fascinated
with it for years, and then receive no encouragement to continue when
they are asked to learn basic concepts of chemistry that they didn't
know and start having to work at something. I worry about these kids
because I *know* that they are even less into other things, that this
*is* the kind of thing that is most likely to hold their interest, and
nevertheless, they are being casually allowed, even encouraged, to back
off from it because it got hard.

So I'll admit that my frustration at watching this happen was building
up and looking for a place to vent to, and this thread wasn't the
perfect place. Nevertheless, it did vent here, and you got to see it.
;)

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >, Rosalie B. wrote:
> Particularly with music, where in order to get good enough to enjoy
> it, it has to be practiced for a long time. I feel about music in
> almost the same way I feel about regular school. All kids should do
> it to the point of being able to play a tune from a piece of easy
> music.

I got this level of instruction, and then some, and I still can't
remember or reproduce a tune with anything like normal levels of
accuracy. It may be genetic, since my father can't carry a tune
either and it looks like my son can't (perhaps a bit early to tell yet
at 7, but he doesn't even like listening to music), but my mother and
my siblings are quite musical (my sister even majored in music in
college and was quiet a good French horn player).

How much do you push music on someone with considerably less than
average skill at it?

> Other than the readin' writin' and 'rithmetic and other things that
> they learn in school, I think all children should learn how to do
> various skills for safety and in order to live in their society.
> Things as varied as how to swim and how to drive a gearshift car. But
> after the child learns to swim, if they really don't like it, they
> don't have to be on a swim team for years.

Swimming is definitely a life skill that all kids should be taught if
possible. It's another one of those things that I got lots of
instruction in, but never got any good at.

I'm not so sure that driving a manual gearshift is an important skill
any more. If it is, my son will be at a distinct disadvantage, since
neither my wife not I have ever had a driver's license. I regard
knowing how to read a bus schedule and ride a bus as life skills, and
am continually amazed at how many college students and adults here in
Santa Cruz have never acquired these skills.

> We've had some discussion on what the life skills are that a child
> should learn. I don't think ballet is one of them, although my mom
> thought it was good for teaching someone to move gracefully.

Ballet is only one of many ways to learn to move gracefully, and
hardly the most useful. Training in a martial art that uses flowing
movements is another route to this goal. I think that learning how to
fall safely is a really important life skill, so have my son in aikido
classes, for the movement practice and the falling practice. (I
sometimes do aikido myself, when my knees will let me.)

> My mom had certain skills that she thought a well brought up young
> lady should have. This included playing the piano or some musical
> instrument, ability to ride a horse, swim, play bridge, sail a boat,
> play tennis, and dance (that is ballroom dancing). Her idea was that
> if a boy asked me or my sister out on a sailing date (for instance)
> that we should know enough about it not to completely embarrass
> ourselves and our date.
>
> I don't think these are the same skills that I would say a girl (or
> child) needs now, although I think everyone should know how to swim.

The basic concept, that activities one is likely to be called on to do
socially are good to know about, is still a good one, but what those
activities are will vary enormously from time to time and from place
to place. Even more important are skills that will keep one alive and
healthy (swimming, knowing how to fall safely, cooking, doing laundry,
riding a bike safely, ...).


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[Cathy Kearns]

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> For ballet in particular, I'd also try hard to steer the child in the
> direction of dance lessons and styles that I regard as healthy, rather
> than practicing things that some people think are "artistic" or
> "beautiful" but which are really bad for the feet. (I don't even
> approve of high heels.)

If you are referring to pointe, you are right, for young feet it's not
healthy. If your daughter falls in love with ballet, do not let her
go on pointe until her feet are 75% ossified, and her technique
is considered by her teacher strong enough to hold her feet up.
Children should not be taught pointe, and few ballet schools in
the US would allow a girl under 12 to even strap the shoes on.
After a year of 20 to 30 minutes a week at the barre, they are
may be ready for center work. (My daughter took two years
of barre.) So you should not see children dancing on pointe,
the youngest performers you should see on pointe are in their
teens. If this is followed, ballet is not really bad for the feet any
more than soccer is really bad for the knees and ankles or tennis
is really bad for the elbows.

>And, again, I'd primarily approach this through
> trying to choose between schools or classes based on a similarity of
> view to my own, rather than trying to discourage the child's enthusiasm.

I wanted soccer and tennis players, I got a dancer and an equestrian.
I thought well, maybe tap, I can do tap with them...they went for
jazz and hip hop. I thought dressage, yes dressage looks lovely,
she went for jumping.

I think they sense our views, and go the other way.

> David desJardins

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >, Rosalie B. wrote:
> Do you mean singing? I was talking about playing an instrument. How
> can you not reproduce a tune on the piano?

As a child I learned to reproduce tunes on piano and on clarinet by
reading music and memorizing finger motions. I couldn't always hear
when a mistake was made, though, and I certainly couldn't sing.

>>How much do you push music on someone with considerably less than
>>average skill at it?
>>
> There are circumstances where music is a lost cause I guess, but I
> haven't had to deal with it.

>>> Other than the readin' writin' and 'rithmetic and other things that
>>> they learn in school, I think all children should learn how to do
>>> various skills for safety and in order to live in their society.
>>> Things as varied as how to swim and how to drive a gearshift car. But
>>> after the child learns to swim, if they really don't like it, they
>>> don't have to be on a swim team for years.
>>
>>Swimming is definitely a life skill that all kids should be taught if
>>possible. It's another one of those things that I got lots of
>>instruction in, but never got any good at.
>
> Well that's where swim team would come in - an hour of practice 2 or 3
> times a week and you'd get at least good enough to swim to shore from
> the boat. Practice is the thing.

I had swimming lessons enough to be able to swim---weekly for about 6
years. I could swim a few hundred yards, if I didn't suffer from
hypothermia---I was a very skinny kid and in those days they didn't
heat the pools nearly enough. Although I don't enjoy swimming now
(and never really have), I feel that swimming is an important life
skill, and my son is getting lessons a couple times a week.

I don't know (or care) whether he gets to be a good enough swimmer to
be on a swim team or become a lifeguard or a surfer, but I'd like him
to have a reasonable chance of survival if he falls of the wharf or
into a pool

....

>>> We've had some discussion on what the life skills are that a child
>>> should learn. I don't think ballet is one of them, although my mom
>>> thought it was good for teaching someone to move gracefully.
>>
>>Ballet is only one of many ways to learn to move gracefully, and
>>hardly the most useful. Training in a martial art that uses flowing
>>movements is another route to this goal. I think that learning how to
>>fall safely is a really important life skill, so have my son in aikido
>>classes, for the movement practice and the falling practice. (I
>>sometimes do aikido myself, when my knees will let me.)
>
> I never had training in martial arts. I learned to fall in theatre
> classes. But learning to move gracefully isn't really necessary.
> Learning to fall is. Gymnasts and horseback riders and vaulters also
> need to know how to fall. Riders practice involuntary dismounts.

There are many ways to learn to fall. Personally, I think that aikido
offers some of the best training in it, since it is not an occasional
practice, as it is in theater or horseback riding, but a
hundreds-of-times an hour practice at every training session.
As a martial art, aikido is particularly appealing for teaching kids,
because it is wholly defensive. It does not offer training in kicking
and punching, but in getting out of the way and redirecting the attack.


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
...

[]
> I wanted soccer and tennis players, I got a dancer and an equestrian.
> I thought well, maybe tap, I can do tap with them...they went for
> jazz and hip hop. I thought dressage, yes dressage looks lovely,
> she went for jumping.[]

I think that this sort of thing happens a lot and I've thinking about what
to do about it. Clearly what is neded is a child exchange website. Then we
could get all the children and parents matched up properly. <g>

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
...

[]
> There are many ways to learn to fall. Personally, I think that aikido
> offers some of the best training in it, since it is not an occasional
> practice, as it is in theater or horseback riding, but a
> hundreds-of-times an hour practice at every training session.
> As a martial art, aikido is particularly appealing for teaching kids,
> because it is wholly defensive. It does not offer training in kicking
> and punching, but in getting out of the way and redirecting the attack.

I didn't feel it was important to teach children to fall until I got to my
fourth child. She just seems to have an active and reckless nature. At 4
yo she broke her leg by jumping backwards off the top bunk. When we asked
her why she did it she told us, "Jumping off frontwards wasn't enough fun."
The day after she got her cast on, she was climbing trees. Once the cast
was off we put her in gymnastics, hoping it would teach her to fall and
improve her ability to assess risks.. She did that for quite a few years
but was not very interested in the competetive aspect (which tends to
dominate gymnastics classes). So, a few years ago she switched to circus
training. She still does not seem to have developed a sense of caution and
says that she would like to be a stunt worker in movies. Other careers she
has expressed interest in are joining the army (not for the fighting - basic
training appeals to her!) and being a firefighter.

I think there are some skills that all children should be exposed to and
then there are other skillls that children need because of their particular
temperment. This would be one of my considerations in how much I encourage
a child to stick to an given activity.

Jayne

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes (Kevin Karplus) wrote:

>In article >, Rosalie B. wrote:
>> Do you mean singing? I was talking about playing an instrument. How
>> can you not reproduce a tune on the piano?
>
>As a child I learned to reproduce tunes on piano and on clarinet by
>reading music and memorizing finger motions. I couldn't always hear
>when a mistake was made, though, and I certainly couldn't sing.

Oy. Well that's certainly an indication that music isn't for you.
Although most of the time when you play tunes, you do it by memorizing
the finger motions, at least at first.
>
>>>> Other than the readin' writin' and 'rithmetic and other things that
>>>> they learn in school, I think all children should learn how to do
>>>> various skills for safety and in order to live in their society.
>>>> Things as varied as how to swim and how to drive a gearshift car. But
>>>> after the child learns to swim, if they really don't like it, they
>>>> don't have to be on a swim team for years.
>>>
>>>Swimming is definitely a life skill that all kids should be taught if
>>>possible. It's another one of those things that I got lots of
>>>instruction in, but never got any good at.
>>
>> Well that's where swim team would come in - an hour of practice 2 or 3
>> times a week and you'd get at least good enough to swim to shore from
>> the boat. Practice is the thing.
>
>I had swimming lessons enough to be able to swim---weekly for about 6
>years. I could swim a few hundred yards, if I didn't suffer from
>hypothermia---I was a very skinny kid and in those days they didn't
>heat the pools nearly enough. Although I don't enjoy swimming now
>(and never really have), I feel that swimming is an important life
>skill, and my son is getting lessons a couple times a week.

Weekly isn't often enough to get any skill. If you were having
lessons, you probably weren't using your muscles enough to stave off
hypothermia. That's why swim team - in swim team, you are SWIMMING
almost all the time - there's none of the stopping for the instructor
to tell you what to do and to allow all the others to have a turn.
Swim team (at least the way I did it) isn't completely about
competition - it's about improving yourself and about aerobic
conditioning. (Which is the problem I see with martial arts - not
enough aerobic conditioning in there.)

Pools that are heated to 80 degrees or more like they do for folks
with arthritis are too hot for good competitive swimming because the
heat generated by the muscles isn't taken away as well as it needs to
be.
>
>I don't know (or care) whether he gets to be a good enough swimmer to
>be on a swim team or become a lifeguard or a surfer, but I'd like him
>to have a reasonable chance of survival if he falls of the wharf or
>into a pool

One doesn't have to be a good swimmer to be on a swim team. Most swim
teams have a bunch of kids that at the beginning of the season aren't
very good.

You might have done OK as a surfer as they usually wear thermal
protection.

grandma Rosalie

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
>
>"Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
...
>
>[]
>> There are many ways to learn to fall. Personally, I think that aikido
>> offers some of the best training in it, since it is not an occasional
>> practice, as it is in theater or horseback riding, but a

In Pony Club, and involuntary dismount is a required skill and is
practiced at increasing paces - starting at the walk. In vaulting
(which is not the gymnastic vault with a stationary 'horse' but is
done with a real horse trotting or cantering in a circle around the
person in the center) it is a skill that is practiced A LOT.

>> hundreds-of-times an hour practice at every training session.
>> As a martial art, aikido is particularly appealing for teaching kids,
>> because it is wholly defensive. It does not offer training in kicking
>> and punching, but in getting out of the way and redirecting the attack.

I tried to give my son karate lessons (it was the only martial art
available to us - we do live way out in the sticks) and he wasn't
interested. Since I was working and I had to rely on him going to
practice after school without my riding herd on him, he didn't get
very far.

>
>I didn't feel it was important to teach children to fall until I got to my
>fourth child. She just seems to have an active and reckless nature. At 4
>yo she broke her leg by jumping backwards off the top bunk. When we asked
>her why she did it she told us, "Jumping off frontwards wasn't enough fun."
>The day after she got her cast on, she was climbing trees. Once the cast
>was off we put her in gymnastics, hoping it would teach her to fall and
>improve her ability to assess risks.. She did that for quite a few years
>but was not very interested in the competetive aspect (which tends to
>dominate gymnastics classes). So, a few years ago she switched to circus
>training. She still does not seem to have developed a sense of caution and
>says that she would like to be a stunt worker in movies. Other careers she
>has expressed interest in are joining the army (not for the fighting - basic
>training appeals to her!) and being a firefighter.
>
My dd#2 was kind of like that. I forbade her to do a back flip off
the diving board after I noticed that she had taken the skin off all
the bumps on her spine by coming down too close to the board.

She has a dd who is definitely the same way. She has absolutely no
fear (dd#2 did have some fears), and will leap into the water at a
moments notice and also seems to have some gymnastic ability. OTOH,
she doesn't like to get hot and sweaty (difficult when you live in
Miami to do any sport that's outdoors). DD#2 has decided on this
basis of this that she probably should be a diver. IMHO none of them
have enough fast twitch muscle fibers to be a good competitive
swimmer.

>I think there are some skills that all children should be exposed to and
>then there are other skillls that children need because of their particular
>temperment. This would be one of my considerations in how much I encourage
>a child to stick to an given activity.
>

grandma Rosalie

[MarjiG]

In article >, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> writes:

>
>I think that this sort of thing happens a lot and I've thinking about what
>to do about it. Clearly what is neded is a child exchange website. Then we
>could get all the children and parents matched up properly. <g>
>

I've been matched with a fashion-manic. DD#1 (started middle school Thursday)
is big into developing her "look" Personally, I'm a 'comfort over all' type.
Given a choice I'd wear jeans or sweats all the time. I don't wear make up at
all and, while I don't think it is at all appropriate for middle school,
clearly she's going to be allowed to wear it at some point, and is going to
need some guidance from someone besides her classmates. I've been considering
asking one of my friends to mentor her.

-Marjorie

[Labra Thoren]

LOL! I have the mix, but not a dancer in the bunch! 14yodd is into
softball, volleyball, her clarinet and swimming.
13yodd enjoys soccer and running but her "love" is anything artsy. She is
very artistic which I love, and am somewhat envious bc I have no talent
whatsoever. My 6yo loves music, singing, etc. but there is no grace. I was
blessed with my girls all of them way more athletically inclined than I was,
and not a cheerleader amongst them.

--
As Always,
Anji


"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> []
> > I wanted soccer and tennis players, I got a dancer and an equestrian.
> > I thought well, maybe tap, I can do tap with them...they went for
> > jazz and hip hop. I thought dressage, yes dressage looks lovely,
> > she went for jumping.[]
>
> I think that this sort of thing happens a lot and I've thinking about what
> to do about it. Clearly what is neded is a child exchange website. Then
we
> could get all the children and parents matched up properly. <g>
>
> Jayne
>
>
>
>

[Labra Thoren]

Middle school is where it starts I think. I am not a make up wearer myself,
I hated that the girls were begging for it, and also did not like to see how
some of the kids at her school were way tooooo over done. What we agreed on
is that upon entering middle school (6th grade) we bought mascara and
lipstick. Any makeup such as eyeshadow or liner seen being "sneaked" would
result in the loss of everything. The 14th birthday is the big day. At 14
they receive full makeup, a professional (at the mall) makeover with
instructions on how to correctly apply without overdoing it. I have seen
Lenee go to her friends and give them "pointers". It always makes me smile.
Now if only we could come to a compromise on the clothing issues... UGH!

--
As Always,
Anji


"MarjiG" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Jayne
Kulikauskas"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >I think that this sort of thing happens a lot and I've thinking about
what
> >to do about it. Clearly what is neded is a child exchange website. Then
we
> >could get all the children and parents matched up properly. <g>
> >
>
> I've been matched with a fashion-manic. DD#1 (started middle school
Thursday)
> is big into developing her "look" Personally, I'm a 'comfort over all'
type.
> Given a choice I'd wear jeans or sweats all the time. I don't wear make
up at
> all and, while I don't think it is at all appropriate for middle school,
> clearly she's going to be allowed to wear it at some point, and is going
to
> need some guidance from someone besides her classmates. I've been
considering
> asking one of my friends to mentor her.
>
> -Marjorie
>
>

[MarjiG]

In article .net>, "Labra
Thoren" > writes:

>The 14th birthday is the big day. At 14
>they receive full makeup, a professional (at the mall) makeover with
>instructions on how to correctly apply without overdoing it. I have seen
>Lenee go to her friends and give them "pointers". It always makes me smile.
>Now if only we could come to a compromise on the clothing issues...

Clothing we're doing reasonably ok on. She has a budget for clothes, that must
last the year, and she knows that if she buys something that I don't approve of
the money is still spent. We have a consignment store near us that caters to
teens, so she can get the brands she wants, without paying a fortune.

I like your system for makeup. My ages might be different, but you've got a
good system. Let me ask this, does what grade they are in at age 14 matter?
One of mine will be starting 8th grade when she turns 14, the other finishing
9th.

-Marjorie

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Mary Gordon > wrote:

>- basic cooking to the point where they can read and follow most
>recipes and understand common terminology (i.e. what saute or brown
>means)

Or a good cookbook that explains the terms they might not already know :)

Which leads me to mine... the ability to do basic research. Maybe a
"school" skill, but it seems fundamental to know what you know, what you
don't and how to fill in the gaps when you need to. These days, that would
involve the ability to use a web search engine effectively, IMO. (Which
goes beyond mechanics to how to choose a good set of search terms to get
what you really need.)

--Robyn

[Cathy Kearns]

"MarjiG" > wrote in message
...
> In article .net>,
"Labra
> Thoren" > writes:
>
> >The 14th birthday is the big day. At 14
> >they receive full makeup, a professional (at the mall) makeover with
> >instructions on how to correctly apply without overdoing it. I have seen
> >Lenee go to her friends and give them "pointers". It always makes me
smile.
> >Now if only we could come to a compromise on the clothing issues...

> I like your system for makeup. My ages might be different, but you've got
a
> good system. Let me ask this, does what grade they are in at age 14
matter?
> One of mine will be starting 8th grade when she turns 14, the other
finishing
> 9th.

This is why I tend to go with grades on stuff like makeup, a 14 year old
eight grader looks old enough without makeup, a 13 year old freshman
might want the makeup to look as old as her classmates. That said,
my 13 year old is starting high school, but is not interested in wearing
more than lip-gloss to school. She wears full makeup for dance
competitions and shows, and finds it a pain to apply and take off.

[Anji]

> I like your system for makeup. My ages might be different, but you've got
a
> good system. Let me ask this, does what grade they are in at age 14
matter?
> One of mine will be starting 8th grade when she turns 14, the other
finishing
> 9th.
>
> -Marjorie
>


Grade hasn't mattered, nor does birthday placement in the school year. LOL!
L turned 14 in Feb during her 8th grade year. D's birthday is July 4th but
bc of retention in 3rd grade, she will receive hers this next summer right
after the end of 7th. grade.

The clothing issues usually come from something "loaned from a friend" or
its just tooooo tight or low. Both girls are "ample" and don't understand
why t-shirts with writing on them are inappropriate on a teenage girl with a
chest.

--
As Always,
Anji

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

>In article >,
>Mary Gordon > wrote:
>
>>- basic cooking to the point where they can read and follow most
>>recipes and understand common terminology (i.e. what saute or brown
>>means)
>
>Or a good cookbook that explains the terms they might not already know :)

And the ability to use something other than a microwave to cook.
>
>Which leads me to mine... the ability to do basic research. Maybe a
>"school" skill, but it seems fundamental to know what you know, what you
>don't and how to fill in the gaps when you need to. These days, that would
>involve the ability to use a web search engine effectively, IMO. (Which
>goes beyond mechanics to how to choose a good set of search terms to get
>what you really need.)

I would add to the research section - the ability to document whether
the stuff you get on the web is real or an urban legend or propaganda.

Of course this is going to be an on-going process as sometimes I don't
know how good information I find on the internet is.

Mary's original list was:

>- very basic fix it skills, changing fuses, using drills etc. (I also
>think every kid should leave home with a very basic tool kit,
>including their own hammer, set of screw drivers, a drill, pliers,
>vice grips, an adjustable wrench etc.)
I would include being able to change the oil and do basic car
maintenance - my dh taught my girls to gap spark plugs, replace
windshield wipers, change the air filter, change a tire and probably
to bleed the brakes, but cars have changed a good bit and some of
those skills are obsolete.
>
>- being able to swim (a key life skill in my opinion)
I agree - and also basic water safety - including the idea that
swimming after a drowning person should not be done unless you've had
a life-saving class, and even then all other options should be
considered first - throwing or reaching something to the person, going
in a boat, swimming a flotation device to them - anything other than
trying to bring in a drowning person oneself, if one doesn't have the
skill and training to do it. Getting drowned trying to save someone
is stupid and not heroic.
>
>- basic first aid (which I think they should cover in health class or
>whatever, as opposed to some of the very stupid and irrelevent junk
>they wasted MY time on)
including the Heimlech maneuver and CPR. Also the knowledge that CPR
has to be taken periodically to be safe.
>
>- ability to do laundry, read care labels etc.
>
>- ability to sew for basic mending, putting buttons back on. I
>actually think being able to thread and use a sewing machine for
>straight seams is a useful thing to be able to do, but I doubt in the
>modern world everyone learns that stuff.

I would add:

- The skills needed to handle money, balance a checkbook and use
credit appropriately.

- The knowledge of what is involved in cleaning the bathroom, and how
to run a vacuum cleaner.

- How to ride a bike, and especially the rules of the road. I really
think an adult should be able to drive a gear shift vehicle.

- Ability to read a map and a transportation schedule.

- computer savvy



grandma Rosalie

[Cheryl]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:09:20 EDT, (Mary Gordon)
wrote:

>Just wondering in light of the direction this thread was heading, what
>basic skills should every child be taught prior to adulthood so they
>can take care of themselves. I can remember being blown away as a
>young woman by the hapless boobs I met in university who couldn't do
>anything for themselves from mending to their laundry.
>
>I'm thinking
>
>- basic cooking to the point where they can read and follow most
>recipes and understand common terminology (i.e. what saute or brown
>means)
>
>- very basic fix it skills, changing fuses, using drills etc. (I also
>think every kid should leave home with a very basic tool kit,
>including their own hammer, set of screw drivers, a drill, pliers,
>vice grips, an adjustable wrench etc.)
>
>- being able to swim (a key life skill in my opinion)
>
>- basic first aid (which I think they should cover in health class or
>whatever, as opposed to some of the very stupid and irrelevent junk
>they wasted MY time on)t
>
>- ability to do laundry, read care labels etc.
>
>- ability to sew for basic mending, putting buttons back on. I
>actually think being able to thread and use a sewing machine for
>straight seams is a useful thing to be able to do, but I doubt in the
>modern world everyone learns that stuff.

- ability to wash dishes in the absence of a dishwasher. And do it
correctly, not by washing the pots and then trying to get glassware
clean in the greasy water.

- knowledge of how to change a car tyre, including the tools to do it
if you don't have muscles.

--
Cheryl
Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00)
and DD (30 Jul 02)

[dragonlady]

In article >,
(MarjiG) wrote:

> In article .net>, "Labra
> Thoren" > writes:
>
> >The 14th birthday is the big day. At 14
> >they receive full makeup, a professional (at the mall) makeover with
> >instructions on how to correctly apply without overdoing it. I have seen
> >Lenee go to her friends and give them "pointers". It always makes me smile.
> >Now if only we could come to a compromise on the clothing issues...
>
> Clothing we're doing reasonably ok on. She has a budget for clothes, that
> must
> last the year, and she knows that if she buys something that I don't approve
> of
> the money is still spent. We have a consignment store near us that caters to
> teens, so she can get the brands she wants, without paying a fortune.
>
> I like your system for makeup. My ages might be different, but you've got a
> good system. Let me ask this, does what grade they are in at age 14 matter?
> One of mine will be starting 8th grade when she turns 14, the other finishing
> 9th.
>
> -Marjorie
>

I thought about a system like that, but ultimately decided to let the
girls do whatever they wanted, as long as they didn't get sent home from
school. My oldst went through a "paint by number" face period, and
there were times when I asked her not to go out in public WITH ME with
that much make up on. I also made sure they had good makeup and
brushes, and instructions on how to do it.

The end result is that my 20 yo and 17 yo daughters almost never wear
ANY makeup: they decided it was too much work.

(I stopped wearing any years ago, too.)

Just one data point for everyone....

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"K, T, E & N" > wrote:

> And it's a terrible pain for their future teachers to undo all that the
> "suzuki method" does to the little minds.
>
> My sister-in-law is a violin teacher of kids to adults. She's been a
> concert violinist and has a masters degree in music. She hates teaching
> kids that have been started on 'suzuki' and starts them just like they've
> never seen a violin before - she says they're sometimes worse than kids that
> have never had a violin in their hands.
>
> Kim
>
>

I suspect that may depend a great deal upon the teacher. I know a
violinist, a cellist, and a classical guitarist who all started with
suzuki, and as older teens and adults read music and play beautifully.
They are now all with 'regular' teachers (having outgrown the suzuki
teachers with whom they started) and from what they've told me had
nothing to "unlearn".

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Cathy Kearns]

"Mary Gordon" > wrote in message
om...
> Just wondering in light of the direction this thread was heading, what
> basic skills should every child be taught prior to adulthood so they
> can take care of themselves. I can remember being blown away as a
> young woman by the hapless boobs I met in university who couldn't do
> anything for themselves from mending to their laundry.

And by the time they have children, these hapless boobs
are their mothers and fathers, and they still don't know how
to sew straps onto a costume, or put patches on a girl scout
vest.

>
> I'm thinking
>
> - basic cooking to the point where they can read and follow most
> recipes and understand common terminology (i.e. what saute or brown
> means)
>
> - very basic fix it skills, changing fuses, using drills etc. (I also
> think every kid should leave home with a very basic tool kit,
> including their own hammer, set of screw drivers, a drill, pliers,
> vice grips, an adjustable wrench etc.)
>
> - being able to swim (a key life skill in my opinion)
>
> - basic first aid (which I think they should cover in health class or
> whatever, as opposed to some of the very stupid and irrelevent junk
> they wasted MY time on)t
>
> - ability to do laundry, read care labels etc.
>
> - ability to sew for basic mending, putting buttons back on. I
> actually think being able to thread and use a sewing machine for
> straight seams is a useful thing to be able to do, but I doubt in the
> modern world everyone learns that stuff.
>
> What else?

Being able to get themselves from one place to another:
Being able to drive
Being able to ride a bike
Being able to figure out public transportation
(Probably 2 out of 3 are good enough)
>
As for kids activities, tennis and golf are things that if taught a
bit when they are young will save them tons of frustration when
they are adults and are looking for retirement activities. By
the way, tennis is a great "date" sport. Just get good enough
to play a reasonable game and you have a very cheap and fun
dating opportunities.

Learning the basics of kids sports (little league, soccer) will
let you help rather than feel helpless on the sidelines when
your kids start these sports. Not to mention the team work
skills picked up in these sports as a child seem to transfer
directly to the teamwork needed to work in large corporations.

[Banty]

In article >, Rosalie B. says...
>

>I would add:
>
>- The skills needed to handle money, balance a checkbook and use
>credit appropriately.
>
>- The knowledge of what is involved in cleaning the bathroom, and how
>to run a vacuum cleaner.
>
>- How to ride a bike, and especially the rules of the road. I really
>think an adult should be able to drive a gear shift vehicle.
>
>- Ability to read a map and a transportation schedule.
>
>- computer savvy

Including touch typing ('keyboarding'). Definitely.

Banty

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
"Cathy Kearns" > wrote:
>
>"Mary Gordon" > wrote in message
om...
>> Just wondering in light of the direction this thread was heading, what
>> basic skills should every child be taught prior to adulthood so they
>> can take care of themselves. I can remember being blown away as a
>> young woman by the hapless boobs I met in university who couldn't do
>> anything for themselves from mending to their laundry.
>
>And by the time they have children, these hapless boobs
>are their mothers and fathers, and they still don't know how
>to sew straps onto a costume, or put patches on a girl scout
>vest.

Do you think this is a reaction against the female person having to do
'menial' or 'woman's' work? Just like some people resist learning to
type because that's for a subordinate and they don't want to be
relegated to doing secretarial work - they want to be the boss??

>>
>> I'm thinking
>>
>> - basic cooking to the point where they can read and follow most
>> recipes and understand common terminology (i.e. what saute or brown
>> means)
>>
>> - very basic fix it skills, changing fuses, using drills etc. (I also
>> think every kid should leave home with a very basic tool kit,
>> including their own hammer, set of screw drivers, a drill, pliers,
>> vice grips, an adjustable wrench etc.)
>>
>> - being able to swim (a key life skill in my opinion)
>>
>> - basic first aid (which I think they should cover in health class or
>> whatever, as opposed to some of the very stupid and irrelevent junk
>> they wasted MY time on)t
>>
>> - ability to do laundry, read care labels etc.
>>
>> - ability to sew for basic mending, putting buttons back on. I
>> actually think being able to thread and use a sewing machine for
>> straight seams is a useful thing to be able to do, but I doubt in the
>> modern world everyone learns that stuff.
>>
>> What else?
>
>Being able to get themselves from one place to another:
> Being able to drive
> Being able to ride a bike
> Being able to figure out public transportation
>(Probably 2 out of 3 are good enough)
>>
>As for kids activities, tennis and golf are things that if taught a
>bit when they are young will save them tons of frustration when
>they are adults and are looking for retirement activities. By
>the way, tennis is a great "date" sport. Just get good enough
>to play a reasonable game and you have a very cheap and fun
>dating opportunities.

I have also heard that a lot of business is transacted on the golf
course which may or may not be a good reason to learn to do it
reasonably well.
>
>Learning the basics of kids sports (little league, soccer) will
>let you help rather than feel helpless on the sidelines when
>your kids start these sports. Not to mention the team work
>skills picked up in these sports as a child seem to transfer
>directly to the teamwork needed to work in large corporations.

I'm not sure that teamwork is all that well learned in beginning
sports activities (i.e. at the start the kids aren't really good
enough to be team players, and the coaching may or may not support
that) or that it can't be learned in more individual sports. Nor does
everyone IMHO need to learn that to work in a large corporation
(assuming that one regards government as a type of large corporation
which is where my experience is). IOW I don't know that the teamwork
skills such as they are transfer to the workplace very well. Military
service works better IME.

And I KNOW that one doesn't have to feel helpless on the sidelines
when one's kids start sports. I myself never competed in swimming and
I ended up coaching swim teams for 6 or 7 years (until I started
teaching school and couldn't get to after school practice)

And I can't ride a horse faster than a trot without falling off and am
frankly a bit afraid of them, and I ended up as a Pony Club District
Commissioner (kind of like a scout leader for a horse club). After a
few years, I became an expert on the rules, and even wrote computer
programs to make the scoring easier. I could tell from the posted
scores if the scorers were making a mistake in their figures even
though I could not tell by looking what breed a horse is or whether
their conformation or movement is good or not.

My dd#2 who never participated in any team sports has a son who is
majorly into baseball, and she's been able to score the games and
explain to other parents what the rules were - probably because it
would drive her crazy to sit and not do anything but watch and would
also driver her up the wall not to know what was going on.

And DD#1 was (with her dh) the person that did the lining of the
fields for the local soccer league, plus assigning teams, storing
equipment, recruiting and training coaches, and the whole bit. She
also played co-ed softball (she married very young so they usually
made her catcher because her knees were in the best shape), volleyball
and basketball with her dh and she certainly NEVER did any of those
things as a child.

Actually all 3 of my girls married sports mad husbands. The youngest
did play soccer one season as a kid, but hated it and never did it
again. Our main team things were Pony Club (where most of the
competition were team competitions like in the Olympics) and swim team
where the only real team things were the relays. The other sports
they did were gymnastics and ice skating. My ds did play Pop Warner
football for 2 years.

grandma Rosalie

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes Banty > wrote:

>In article >, Rosalie B. says...
>>
>
>>I would add:
>>
>>- The skills needed to handle money, balance a checkbook and use
>>credit appropriately.
>>
>>- The knowledge of what is involved in cleaning the bathroom, and how
>>to run a vacuum cleaner.
>>
>>- How to ride a bike, and especially the rules of the road. I really
>>think an adult should be able to drive a gear shift vehicle.
>>
>>- Ability to read a map and a transportation schedule.
>>
>>- computer savvy
>
>Including touch typing ('keyboarding'). Definitely.
>
Yes - I forgot that.


grandma Rosalie

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
dragonlady > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Rosalie B." > wrote:
>
>> >- very basic fix it skills, changing fuses, using drills etc. (I also
>> >think every kid should leave home with a very basic tool kit,
>> >including their own hammer, set of screw drivers, a drill, pliers,
>> >vice grips, an adjustable wrench etc.)
>> I would include being able to change the oil and do basic car
>> maintenance - my dh taught my girls to gap spark plugs, replace
>> windshield wipers, change the air filter, change a tire and probably
>> to bleed the brakes, but cars have changed a good bit and some of
>> those skills are obsolete.
>> >
>I'd disagree with most of this; when it comes to the car, the ability
>to change a tire, to jump start a car with a dead battery, how to get a
>car out when it's stuck in snow -- other than that, the ability to find
>a good mechanic! (Well, if you have a standard transmission, knowing
>how to push-start a car with a dead battery can come in handy.)
>
Well I said a lot of the skill he taught them were obsolete. But I
think in addition to how to change a tire and jump start it, changing
the windshield wiper blades isn't a lot to ask.

>My dad never did any of that stuff -- though he was quite handy in other
>ways. I've gotten by for 51 years (so far) without learning any of htat
>stuff, and DH (an engineer) never learned much beyond understanding how
>a car engine works. Changing the oil and much other maintenance is only
>a good idea if you have a place for it (the apartment complex parking
>lot or the busy street in front of a house without off street parking is
>NOT a good idea!) and if you are sure you can do it without leaving any
>oil behind to pollute.

I don't mean that you should actually CHANGE the oil - just know how
it should be done and that it should be done and something of the
schedule. You should know how to check the oil, and how to add more
if it seems low (and what is normal for your car).

You need to know what it means if the car starts overheating, and in
general how the machinery works so that you can take it to a mechanic
at an appropriate time. And also enough so that you can talk to the
mechanic without being intimidated and/or sounding stupid.

grandma Rosalie

[Bruce and Jeanne]

Mary Gordon wrote:

> Just wondering in light of the direction this thread was heading, what
> basic skills should every child be taught prior to adulthood so they
> can take care of themselves. I can remember being blown away as a
> young woman by the hapless boobs I met in university who couldn't do
> anything for themselves from mending to their laundry.
>
> I'm thinking
>
> - basic cooking to the point where they can read and follow most
> recipes and understand common terminology (i.e. what saute or brown
> means)
>
> - very basic fix it skills, changing fuses, using drills etc. (I also
> think every kid should leave home with a very basic tool kit,
> including their own hammer, set of screw drivers, a drill, pliers,
> vice grips, an adjustable wrench etc.)
>
> - being able to swim (a key life skill in my opinion)
>
> - basic first aid (which I think they should cover in health class or
> whatever, as opposed to some of the very stupid and irrelevent junk
> they wasted MY time on)t
>
> - ability to do laundry, read care labels etc.
>
> - ability to sew for basic mending, putting buttons back on. I
> actually think being able to thread and use a sewing machine for
> straight seams is a useful thing to be able to do, but I doubt in the
> modern world everyone learns that stuff.
>
> What else?
>
Ability to understand personal finances. This is absolutely crucial.

Able to understand basic maintenance of a car, if child can drive. I've
had to change a tire twice on my own as well as replace fuses, change
interior light bulbs and add the requisite fluids.


Jeanne

[Chris Smith]

Banty wrote:
> >- computer savvy
>
> Including touch typing ('keyboarding'). Definitely.

I honestly believe that's something that works for most people, but not
at all for some others. It's more difficult to learn to type fast and
well otherwise, but it's not impossible, and if (like me!) a kid simply
can't learn to touch-type, I doubt it should be called an important life
skill. Being able to type well in general, though, definitely should.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Colleen Porter]

(Mary Gordon) wrote in message >...

> - ability to sew for basic mending, putting buttons back on. I
> actually think being able to thread and use a sewing machine for
> straight seams is a useful thing to be able to do, but I doubt in the
> modern world everyone learns that stuff.

I sew quite a few of my clothes--some are made from the ground up, and
some are bought but altered significantly (pockets added, hemming,
slits added, or the scoop neck made not so scoopy). I also made my
girls many dresses (some old-tyme misc.kidders will remember the
notorious $7 graduation dress) and lots of custom-designed equipment
that my husband needed for work (zippered mesh enclosures). Since I
commute by bicycle, all my work skirts are really culottes, which I
made myself and frequently get asked about where I bought them.

Because sewing has been so cost-effective for us and given us such
freedom, my husband was insistent that our girls learn to sew, and we
really tried with the older girls. They were decidedly not
interested.

Then when they graduated from high school, they became involved with
Renaissance Faires, and started making period costumes as authentic as
they could. Suddenly, they became very interested, and training we
had force-fed them became valued. My oldest daughter became quite a
fine seamstress, and she bartered some shirts for a sword (which was a
great deal). Her elegant wedding dress was homemade--she did part of
it, my mother-in-law did part of it, I did part of it. She is making
the wedding dress for daughter #2, who will be married next spring.

My mother didn't sew; I had learned in home economics class in high
school. Nowadays, with cuts in school periods, nobody has time to
take "extra" classes like that.

Colleen Kay Porter

[Colleen Porter]

(Kevin Karplus) wrote in message >...
>
> I'm not so sure that driving a manual gearshift is an important skill
> any more.

I think it depends where you want to travel. In Central and South
America, a manual rental car is quite inexpensive, while an automatic
car rental is pricey. So if you want to climb the pyramid at Uxmal,
or see the wonder of Iguacu Falls, then being able to drive a manual
car is a big help. Since my husband spends part of every year in
South America, and we travel there, we will continue to keep one
manual car so that we can keep our familiarity.

> If it is, my son will be at a distinct disadvantage, since
> neither my wife not I have ever had a driver's license. I regard
> knowing how to read a bus schedule and ride a bus as life skills, and
> am continually amazed at how many college students and adults here in
> Santa Cruz have never acquired these skills.

I commute by bicycle most days, and my college-aged girls have taken
the bus to campus regularly. But I don't think that expertise in
those skills negates the need for a driver's license.

There are lots of cities where I wouldn't own a car if I lived there
(Washington, D.C. or Boston!) but I would still rent cars for
vacations, etc. In our travels, we often we go to places that you
just couldn't get to by a bus or bicycle, and I'd hate to miss out on
sunset over Red Rock Canyon (Nevada) or early morning in the
Everglades.

Colleen Kay Porter

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Rosalie B. > wrote:
>I would include being able to change the oil and do basic car
>maintenance - my dh taught my girls to gap spark plugs, replace
>windshield wipers, change the air filter, change a tire and probably
>to bleed the brakes, but cars have changed a good bit and some of
>those skills are obsolete.

The only one of these I've ever done on my own was replacing windshield
wipers. I've done a headlight as well. I was never "taught" to do it,
I learned when I did it. I think the general lesson here is not "how
to change windshield wipers" which will vary by car and replacement wiper
brand, but rather "how to read and follow mechanical directions" This
would include assembly instructions for the cheap shelves and desks they
are likely to buy for their first apartment, etc.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Bruce and Jeanne > wrote:
>Ability to understand personal finances. This is absolutely crucial.

Absolutely! Included in this:

-- understanding of compound interest and the time-value of money
-- understanding of good and bad ways to use credit cards
-- understanding how to read the fine print on "no payments and no
interest until 2005" offers to avoid getting burned
-- basics of income tax laws and deductions/credits

etc....

My 7 and 10yo already know exactly what it means when I pay for
something on a credit card, and that I always pay it off at
the end of the month because otherwise I'd have to pay a lot
of extra money for the privilege.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Colleen Porter > wrote:
(Kevin Karplus) wrote in message
>...
>>
>> I'm not so sure that driving a manual gearshift is an important skill
>> any more.
>
>I think it depends where you want to travel. In Central and South
>America, a manual rental car is quite inexpensive, while an automatic
>car rental is pricey. So if you want to climb the pyramid at Uxmal,
>or see the wonder of Iguacu Falls, then being able to drive a manual
>car is a big help. Since my husband spends part of every year in
>South America, and we travel there, we will continue to keep one
>manual car so that we can keep our familiarity.

I think driving a stick is sort of like riding a bike -- you can keep
the skill without much practice. I've driven manuals on and off over
the years, and never had any trouble even if it had been years since
the previous time. No worse than the usual disorientation in any
unfamiliar car as you get used to the locations of various controls,
IME.

>There are lots of cities where I wouldn't own a car if I lived there
>(Washington, D.C. or Boston!) but I would still rent cars for
>vacations, etc.


Exactly. We've been "Car-free in Boston" (that's the name of a book)
before but still ended up driving occasionally for various reasons.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[Karen G]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:42:25 EDT, (Robyn
Kozierok) wrote:

>In article >,
>Bruce and Jeanne > wrote:
>>Ability to understand personal finances. This is absolutely crucial.
>
>Absolutely! Included in this:
>
>-- understanding of compound interest and the time-value of money
>-- understanding of good and bad ways to use credit cards
>-- understanding how to read the fine print on "no payments and no
>interest until 2005" offers to avoid getting burned
>-- basics of income tax laws and deductions/credits
>
>etc....
>
>My 7 and 10yo already know exactly what it means when I pay for
>something on a credit card, and that I always pay it off at
>the end of the month because otherwise I'd have to pay a lot
>of extra money for the privilege.
>
>--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

The ultimate challenge is teaching these concepts. There are a variety
of adults standing in line everywhere you go who have no concept of any
of these items. H&R Block certainly capitalizes on it. While
accounting probably isn't a necessary skill, reading comprehension--on
every subject--is for financial, ethical, and medical reasons.

What strategies have you all used to teach the financial concepts? I am
just hitting the tip of the iceberg with my oldest (4 1/2) on the fact
that things cost money. We have delved into the difference between what
costs a lot and what doesn't and a bit into what is a "need" and what is
a "want." We have also been consistent in giving an offering at church
because "some people don't have any money."

We have also started on comprehension issues with the 3 and 4 1/2 year
olds. Mainly we are working on this by stopping after we read a book or
watch a movie and discuss what happened, who the characters were, and
what they liked. I have also started including them in cooking things
and talked about the importance of the recipes and what the directions
mean.

Any other thoughts?
Karen Glaesemann

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Karen G > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:42:25 EDT, (Robyn
> Kozierok) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >Bruce and Jeanne > wrote:
> >>Ability to understand personal finances. This is absolutely crucial.
> >
> >Absolutely! Included in this:
> >
> >-- understanding of compound interest and the time-value of money
> >-- understanding of good and bad ways to use credit cards
> >-- understanding how to read the fine print on "no payments and no
> >interest until 2005" offers to avoid getting burned
> >-- basics of income tax laws and deductions/credits
> >
> >etc....
> >
> >My 7 and 10yo already know exactly what it means when I pay for
> >something on a credit card, and that I always pay it off at
> >the end of the month because otherwise I'd have to pay a lot
> >of extra money for the privilege.
> >
> >--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
>
> The ultimate challenge is teaching these concepts. There are a variety
> of adults standing in line everywhere you go who have no concept of any
> of these items. H&R Block certainly capitalizes on it. While
> accounting probably isn't a necessary skill, reading comprehension--on
> every subject--is for financial, ethical, and medical reasons.
>
> What strategies have you all used to teach the financial concepts? I am
> just hitting the tip of the iceberg with my oldest (4 1/2) on the fact
> that things cost money. We have delved into the difference between what
> costs a lot and what doesn't and a bit into what is a "need" and what is
> a "want." We have also been consistent in giving an offering at church
> because "some people don't have any money."

As a religious professional, I'd prefer that you explain that church is
a sort of religious cooperative: it takes money from everybody to run
it. Even if EVERYONE had money, you would still have to pledge or put
in the collection plate to maintain the building (or pay rent), pay the
staff, pay for the paper that the newsletter is printed on, pay for the
hymnals, heat the building, pay for lights . . . giving at church,
unless you are specifically giving to a restricted fund, is not the same
as charitable giving to help support people who are poor, though your
church may opperate programs that do that with some of the collected
funds, as well.

One of the other ways I have always given in a visible way that my kids
"get" is by putting $$ in the Salvation Army kettles at Christmas. That
money does go for feeding hungry people, and Christmas gifts for kids
who might not otherwise get any.

I have a friend who gives her kids their allowance in, iirc, 3 different
"pots": one pot is for immediate spending on whatever they want, one
has to be saved up until some specific amount is reached -- generally
towards a specific larger purchase -- and one is for giving away. Twice
a year, the kids decide how much of that money to give to whom. It
seems to be working well -- her kids also voluntarily set aside a
certain amount of any money they earn for charitable contributions, and
they seem to put a lot of thought and effort into deciding where their
money goes.

As far as some of the longer term concepts -- DH brought home a chart
once that showed how much money you would have to save each month to
have a million dollars by the time you were 62, assuming a compound
interest rate of 5%, and starting at different ages, from age 15 to age
60. The difference in the amount of monthly savings, as well as the
total amount YOU put in (as opposed to the amount you get from interest)
is pretty dramatic. Two of my kids just yawned at it, but my son got
quite excited, and almost immediately decided to start putting $20 a
month into a mutual fund that is offered to minors through our insurance
company. That was over three years ago. (Unfortunately, he now has
around $500 to show for the $700 he's saved, but we keep assuring him
that, since this is a LONG HAUL investment, he needs to just hang in
there and the amount will come back up . . . eventually . . . The stock
market isn't an easy thing to explain to grownups, nevermind children!)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Rosalie B.]

Karen G > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:42:25 EDT, (Robyn
>Kozierok) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Bruce and Jeanne > wrote:
>>>Ability to understand personal finances. This is absolutely crucial.
>>
>>Absolutely! Included in this:
>>
>>-- understanding of compound interest and the time-value of money
>>-- understanding of good and bad ways to use credit cards
>>-- understanding how to read the fine print on "no payments and no
>>interest until 2005" offers to avoid getting burned
>>-- basics of income tax laws and deductions/credits
>>
>>etc....
>>
>>My 7 and 10yo already know exactly what it means when I pay for
>>something on a credit card, and that I always pay it off at
>>the end of the month because otherwise I'd have to pay a lot
>>of extra money for the privilege.
>>
>
>The ultimate challenge is teaching these concepts. There are a variety
>of adults standing in line everywhere you go who have no concept of any
>of these items. H&R Block certainly capitalizes on it. While
>accounting probably isn't a necessary skill, reading comprehension--on
>every subject--is for financial, ethical, and medical reasons.
>
>What strategies have you all used to teach the financial concepts? I am
>just hitting the tip of the iceberg with my oldest (4 1/2) on the fact
>that things cost money. We have delved into the difference between what
>costs a lot and what doesn't and a bit into what is a "need" and what is
>a "want." We have also been consistent in giving an offering at church
>because "some people don't have any money."
>
I think at that age, mostly they are observing what their parents do.

They should have some small amount of money of their own to manage for
themselves, however much of a hash they make of it. Over and above
the amount that you want them to tithe (if you do that).

My dh had a family life/budgeting class in college, and I was
substitute teaching a DCT class when we were first married
(Diversified Cooperative Training). I gave the kids a similar project
to do. It was fairly involved, but I counted one of my great teaching
breakthroughs when one of the boys in my homeroom came into class with
a newspaper ad for a stereo system, and figured out on the blackboard
exactly how much extra he would be paying if he 'made payments'
instead of saving the money and paying cash. He decided it was crazy
to buy it on time.

Of course this has to be age appropriate. I had my dd's open savings
accounts when they were about 10 or 12. At about that age, they can
have an allowance to buy clothing.

Although that doesn't always work the way you think it will. I
refused to buy any clothes and insisted on saving all my money. Mom
had to take the allowance away from me and insisted that I get some
underwear. My sister spent hers and never saved any money, but she
never had anything to wear either.

I am still very cheap when it comes to buying clothes, and my dh often
gives me underwear (basic cotton panties) for Xmas or a bday (I am
happy to have him do that BTW). And my sister employs a personal
shopper for big events like the wedding of her son in order to have an
outfit that is flattering and appropriate to wear.

All of my girls and SILs are pretty good with money - my ds and DIL
aren't quite so thrifty.

>We have also started on comprehension issues with the 3 and 4 1/2 year
>olds. Mainly we are working on this by stopping after we read a book or
>watch a movie and discuss what happened, who the characters were, and
>what they liked. I have also started including them in cooking things
>and talked about the importance of the recipes and what the directions
>mean.
>
>Any other thoughts?
>Karen Glaesemann

grandma Rosalie

[Iowacookiemom]

>What strategies have you all used to teach the financial concepts?

Right now, we are house hunting and we've been very open with Henry about the
whole process of selling our home in Iowa and buying a new home in Texas. I
remember my parents did the same for me when I was 9 and we moved to a new
community.

While the dollar amounts for new houses can seem staggering to a child, the
overall concepts of interest, household budgeting, needs/wants/trade-offs have
been very helpful and have sparked some great conversations. For example, at
first we all wanted to have a pool. Then we realized it would mean a smaller
house than we had become used to. We started to look at larger houses without
pools. Our rental house has a pool and we are using it daily -- it has become
a real family bonding thing. So, recently we all agreed that a pool is a
priority. We showed Henry how that changes the size house we are looking for
due to cost as well as pool maintenance costs that must be factored in to the
household budget.

Then, I began my job search. As I got a sense of what a likely salary will be
for me (the economy/cost of living is different here), we have again sat down
with our budget and determined that we can increase the house budget some.
Henry is learning that those big, 6-figure house numbers translate into monthly
payments that need to square with monthly income. And, we've discussed that I
could make more money if I was willing to work 50, 60 hours per week routinely
at a high-responsibility job -- we've all agreed that after having a summer
with me not working, we enjoy the benefits the whole family has when I am not
at work full time.

Henry's gotten so involved and is so sensitive to everyone's list of
needs/wants for the house that our realtor has even commented on it: "Henry
amazes me -- I've never seen a 10 year old who will rule out a house if it
doesn't have a nice enough kitchen!" (Henry knows a kitchen is high on my
"want" list).

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 10

[dragonlady]

In article >,
(Splanche) wrote:

> >As a religious professional, I'd prefer that you explain that church is
> >a sort of religious cooperative: it takes money from everybody to run
> >it. Even if EVERYONE had money, you would still have to pledge or put
> >in the collection plate to maintain the building (or pay rent), pay the
> >staff, pay for the paper that the newsletter is printed on, pay for the
> >hymnals, heat the building, pay for lights . . . giving at church,
> >unless you are specifically giving to a restricted fund, is not the same
> >as charitable giving to help support people who are poor, though your
> >church may opperate programs that do that with some of the collected
> >funds, as well.
>
> I'm not sure how all churches work, but my synagogue has annual dues (paid by
> check quarterly) that my child doesn't see. What she does see is the money
> that
> we put in the charity (tzedakah) box weekly.
>
> I would assume that there are also some churches that are similar, and that
> the
> collections made there weekly are in fact stricly for charity. YMMV.
> - Blanche
>

There may be some, but I am not aware of any; the church for which I
work does have one Sunday a month where the offering goes to a charity
selected by the board, and some have second collections for charity --
but I don't know of any that have dues to support the church;
generally, the $$ in the collection plate is part of what supports the
church.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Karen G]

It sounds like the key then is taking advantage of all of the situations
we run accross and including the kids in an age appropriate way. I know
that my parents often tried to discuss such things above our
heads--particularly real estate transactions--and scared me out of my
wits at the age of 7 or 8. They just assumed I was too young to
understand any of it.

Anyway, taking advantage of the situations we are in makes sense.
Teaching that things cost money, we have run into discussions at the
grocery store about why we choose which items and use coupons. Then we
talked about how daddy goes to work to earn money and that pays for our
house, our clothes, our gasoline, our cars, and our food. They are too
young to understand insurance and stuff like that, so we haven't gotten
there yet. In terms of giving to church and such, they give some change
out of my purse every week, but we make a big deal about special
offerings with them. We haven't started an allowance yet, so tithing
really isn't discussed yet. We have focussed on the "joy of giving."

Time to broaden my horizons again. I can't believe my oldest is going
to start preschool next month.
Karen Glaesemann

[Robyn Kozierok]

Karen G > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:42:25 EDT, (Robyn
> Kozierok) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >Bruce and Jeanne > wrote:
> >>Ability to understand personal finances. This is absolutely crucial.
> >
> >Absolutely! Included in this:
> >
> >-- understanding of compound interest and the time-value of money
> >-- understanding of good and bad ways to use credit cards
> >-- understanding how to read the fine print on "no payments and no
> >interest until 2005" offers to avoid getting burned
> >-- basics of income tax laws and deductions/credits


>
> What strategies have you all used to teach the financial concepts?

Well, most of the stuff I listed above is for high-school aged
kids....

What we do is talk about what we do :)

They come grocery shopping sometimes, and know that we generally buy
only what is on sale with the exception of milk and sometimes a few
other fresh things. They know I keep track of what is a good price
for things, and if they ask for something not on sale, I will tell
them that the current price is not a good one, so we won't be buying
any this week. People always comment when they hear a 6yo exclaim,
"Ooh, 99 cents for avocados, that's a great price!" (which actually
happened when Ryan was 6 or so).

My kids get an allowance. This is mainly to cure the "buy me's" --
they ask me to buy them some piece of junk and I ask if they want to
spend their own money on it. Usually not. It also helps them see
that they can get more by saving for a while. I could say more about
our allowance philosophy, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

As I said, my kids understand what it means when I use a credit card.
I use mine often because we get cashback on it but the realize that I
have to send them real money every month to pay it back. They also
know that the ATM machine will only give me money if I've put it in
the bank first.

They have a general idea that we get paid to work, and that we pay
part of that money to the bank for the loan (mortgage) we took to buy
our house, to pay for electricity and telephone service, etc., and to
buy the things we need like food and clothes. And still try to have
some left over to spend on fun things. They don't know
amounts/magnitudes yet.

They know that $4.99 is "really" $5, that if it says $4.99 on the tag
it will cost more than that because of sales tax, and that
advertisements are there for the purpose of convincing us to buy
things we may not really need.

So, just talk to your kids as you go through your days, at their
level, and they'll learn.

--Robyn

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >,
Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> My kids get an allowance. This is mainly to cure the "buy me's" --
> they ask me to buy them some piece of junk and I ask if they want to
> spend their own money on it. Usually not. It also helps them see
> that they can get more by saving for a while. I could say more about
> our allowance philosophy, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

I'd like to see that thread---how much do people give as an allowance?
is is free money or does it have to be earned? does the child have to
buy anything out of the allowance? how much guidance is given on
spending? ...


To kick it off. My 7-year-old son gets a monthly allowance---not from
me but from his grandmother. It is $7 a month (up from $6 a month
last year--it goes up on his birthday each year). This is a free
gift---he does not need to do anything to earn it and he can spend it
on anything he wants. We do require him to write a thank-you note
each month, which he is better about doing than I was as a child
(heck, he's better about it than I am now!).

A small amount of it goes for candy or toys, a small amount for
trading cards (mainly Harry Potter), but mostly he accumulates it.
When he gets more in his wallet than we are comfortable with him
carrying, we take him to the credit union so that he can deposit the
excess in his account. He says he is saving up for something he
really wants, but he hasn't decided what yet.

When he wants something that we don't particularly want to get him
(usually candy or a cheaply made toy), we ask him if he wants to spend
his own money and we discuss the price. We talk about the value of
the item he is purchasing (how much he'll enjoy it, how long he'll
play with it, ...) as well as the price. Most often, he decides he
really does want the item and is willing to spend the money, but
occasionally he decides that an item is too expensive.

Some things we ration---for example, he is allowed to buy a popsicle
from the ice cream truck, but only once a week. He's used to the idea
of treats being rationed, as for several years we've limited him to
one piece of candy a day and one hour of screen-time (computer, TV,
movie, ...) a day, with occasional exceptions (Halloween, family outing
to a movie, ...).

We've allowed him some things that we expected would disappoint (toys
that failed after only an hour or so of play), but since he knew the
risk when he was buying he has never been very sad about these
purchases. Although his notion of the prices of things is still
rudimentary, he does have a fair idea of what his allowance will and
won't buy, and how much he's willing to spend for various items.

When he's older, we might give him an additional allowance that he can
earn by doing chores (right now the money isn't valuable enough to him
to provide any incentive---other rewards work much better). We might
also give him a clothing allowance at some point, rather than get
clothes for him (right now he doesn't care that much about what he
wears and doesn't like shopping for clothes, so buying without him is
easier). I don't think we'll do the clothing allowance until he's in
high school.

--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[Iowacookiemom]

>I'd like to see that thread---how much do people give as an allowance?
>is is free money or does it have to be earned? does the child have to
>buy anything out of the allowance? how much guidance is given on
>spending? ...

I'll answer, and add another couple of questions: what tasks, if any, are
available in your home for a 10-12 year old who wants to earn extra money? How
do you differentiate, if at all, between normal, expected chores and paid
chores?

Our situation is this: We've done the $1 per year of life thing since Henry
was 4 or 5. He doesn't do anything in particular for it, but he is expected to
do basic things around the house (keep room clean, help with pets, etc) and
occasionally we have discussed stopping allowance if he can't keep up on these
things. (He has ADD so it's hard for him to stay focused/organized, although
better since he's begun taking medication for it).

With his allowance he is generally expected to buy any extras he wants: CDs,
candy, magazines, toys, etc. Often I keep his allowance mentally rather than
physically handing him the cash, but we do try to keep square on money earned
versus money spent. I think physically handing him the cash would be better,
but I don't usually keep a lot of cash on hand and he doesn't carry a wallet so
rarely has his money with him when we see something he wants.

This summer he got the wild idea in his head that he wants his own laptop. We
have mixed feelings about it -- we like the fact that the computer is in
family/common space and is a shared item, but selfishly there are days when I
wish he had his own ;-) He knows we have not made a decision on whether he
could even have one, but he nevertheless began saving (prior to this, he would
spend his allowance as fast as he got it, with occasional bouts of savings for
a vacation or special item).

He's got about $300 so far, partly allowance and partly gifts as well as money
he's earned for helping with some really big jobs associated with our move.
Example: on moving day he mopped all the hardwood floors -- basically all the
floors in a 2600 square foot house -- for $20. Earlier that week he hauled a
waist-high stack of broken-down cardboard boxes up steep steps out of the
basement and out to the curb for another $20. I realize this is pretty
generous but we want to encourage his saving and help him understand the
concept of hard work and sticking with a task.

I think those concepts are sticking and have been worth the money/effort, but a
side effect that is driving me crazy is that every time I need his help I get
"how much will you give me?" Luckily, so far if I explain to him that not every
task is a paid one, that some we just do as part of the community of a home, he
still helps out willingly and usually cheerfully.

I will say that he has good capitalist tendencies ;-) -- his work quality is
markedly different if he is being paid. But in the process he has learned the
pride of seeing a difficult task through to the end (something he'd not done
much of previously due to the ADD).

I expect posters responses will vary widely on this one, due to philosophy, of
course, but also due to available money, number of kids, frame of reference
(what did their parent do when they were kids?) etc.

Just thought of one more thing -- one side effect of this saving-for-a-laptop
thing is that he doesn't want to go to the mall anymore -- he says he just
feels bad seeing all the things he wants but can't have because he's saving.

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 10

[Marion Baumgarten]

Iowacookiemom > wrote:

>
>
> He's got about $300 so far, partly allowance and partly gifts as well as money
> he's earned for helping with some really big jobs associated with our move.
> Example: on moving day he mopped all the hardwood floors -- basically all the
> floors in a 2600 square foot house -- for $20. Earlier that week he hauled a
> waist-high stack of broken-down cardboard boxes up steep steps out of the
> basement and out to the curb for another $20. I realize this is pretty
> generous but we want to encourage his saving and help him understand the
> concept of hard work and sticking with a task.

He's not too far off on getting one. My daughter bought a servicable
ibook on ebay for $500 a year ago. cam't help on the chores part.

Marion Baumgarten

[Iowacookiemom]

>He's not too far off on getting one. My daughter bought a servicable
>ibook on ebay for $500 a year ago. cam't help on the chores part.

Ah, if only "serviceable" was a concept he understood. No, he wants a specific
laptop with bells and whistles he doesn't really need -- like a DVD player.
And he wants a blue one (this is what happens when 10 year olds buy
electronics). We're working slowly on the features issue; we have a better
chance of a breakthrough there than we do on the color issue :-/

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 10

[Elizabeth King]

"Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> > My kids get an allowance. This is mainly to cure the "buy me's" --
> > they ask me to buy them some piece of junk and I ask if they want to
> > spend their own money on it. Usually not. It also helps them see
> > that they can get more by saving for a while. I could say more about
> > our allowance philosophy, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
>
> I'd like to see that thread---how much do people give as an allowance?
> is is free money or does it have to be earned? does the child have to
> buy anything out of the allowance? how much guidance is given on
> spending? ...

My 5 year old daughter gets $5 per week. This is divided up as
$1.50 discretionary (she can do whatever she wants with it)
$1.50 short term savings (for something that costs more than 4 weeks of
discretionary money)
$1.50 college savings
$.50 "helping other people" money

We started this when she was 3. Each year her allowance goes up, as does the
expectations of what she will do with it-- as of this year, she is
responsible for her own craft supplies. She has so much stuff that I don't
expect this to be an issue for a few years, but it has changed her attitude
towards the supplies some.

She immediately understood the power of saving, which surprised me. She
actually had saved quite a bit in her "short term" savings bank, but then
spent it down. She now has about $20, and is paralyzed trying to decide
which thing she wants to spend it on. She has to decide on something before
going to the store, and I've mostly instituted a 24 hour period between
deciding on something and buying it.

I'm still struggling with the tying it to chores concept...

Liz (and Amanda)

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Rosalie B. > wrote:
>Of course this has to be age appropriate. I had my dd's open savings
>accounts when they were about 10 or 12. At about that age, they can
>have an allowance to buy clothing.
>
>Although that doesn't always work the way you think it will. I
>refused to buy any clothes and insisted on saving all my money. Mom
>had to take the allowance away from me and insisted that I get some
>underwear. My sister spent hers and never saved any money, but she
>never had anything to wear either.

I had a separate clothing allowance starting at about 13yo. It was my
idea (some of my friends had one) and it worked out really well for me.
I couldn't use that money on anything else, so there was no incentive to
just not buy clothes. I had to have some kind of plan the first few years
to assure my parents that I'd end up with appropriate amounts of clothing,
and I think they covered large outerwear purchases like winter coats
and boots separately. I highly recommend doing something like this for teens.

--Robyn

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>Ah, if only "serviceable" was a concept he understood. No, he wants a
>specific
>laptop with bells and whistles he doesn't really need -- like a DVD player.

I have a DVD player on mine because it was part of the special that week from
Dell.

--Helen

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"Elizabeth King" > wrote:

> "Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> > > My kids get an allowance. This is mainly to cure the "buy me's" --
> > > they ask me to buy them some piece of junk and I ask if they want to
> > > spend their own money on it. Usually not. It also helps them see
> > > that they can get more by saving for a while. I could say more about
> > > our allowance philosophy, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
> >
> > I'd like to see that thread---how much do people give as an allowance?
> > is is free money or does it have to be earned? does the child have to
> > buy anything out of the allowance? how much guidance is given on
> > spending? ...
>
> My 5 year old daughter gets $5 per week. This is divided up as
> $1.50 discretionary (she can do whatever she wants with it)
> $1.50 short term savings (for something that costs more than 4 weeks of
> discretionary money)
> $1.50 college savings
> $.50 "helping other people" money
>
> We started this when she was 3. Each year her allowance goes up, as does the
> expectations of what she will do with it-- as of this year, she is
> responsible for her own craft supplies. She has so much stuff that I don't
> expect this to be an issue for a few years, but it has changed her attitude
> towards the supplies some.
>
> She immediately understood the power of saving, which surprised me. She
> actually had saved quite a bit in her "short term" savings bank, but then
> spent it down. She now has about $20, and is paralyzed trying to decide
> which thing she wants to spend it on. She has to decide on something before
> going to the store, and I've mostly instituted a 24 hour period between
> deciding on something and buying it.
>
> I'm still struggling with the tying it to chores concept...
>
> Liz (and Amanda)
>
>
>

While I understand that lots of folks tie the allowance to chores, I
have not. For one thing, I think everyone who lives in a house should
have some share of the $$ coming in, and I think everyone who lives in a
house should share in its maintenance and upkeep (ie, chores). Those
two facts are unrelated.

If chores are tied to allowance, does that mean the child can elect to
NOT do chores if the household falls on economic hard times and has to
cut back or eliminate allowances? (That used to happen periodically
when I was growing up: we all understood that when Dad was laid off or
on strike, our allowances were cut or eliminated, depending upon how
long it was and whether he was able to find other work.)

Or, a more immediate question in THIS house, when the kid gets old
enough for a REAL job, does that mean they can say they don't want their
allowance any more, because they'd rather not do chores? (My 17 yo son
has had several opportunities to be the youth half of an adult-youth
team who leads weekend conferences, to the tune of $200 a weekend; in
addition, he just got a decent first time job, and his take home pay for
this last two weeks will be over $400 -- WAY more than his allowance.
In his case, I could see him offering to give up his relatively meager
allowance and refusing to do chores, if chores and allowance had been
tied; since they never have been in this house, he hasn't even begun to
suggest it.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes "Elizabeth King" > wrote:

>"Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd like to see that thread---how much do people give as an allowance?
>> is is free money or does it have to be earned? does the child have to
>> buy anything out of the allowance? how much guidance is given on
>> spending? ...
>
>My 5 year old daughter gets $5 per week. This is divided up as
>$1.50 discretionary (she can do whatever she wants with it)
>$1.50 short term savings (for something that costs more than 4 weeks of
>discretionary money)
>$1.50 college savings
>$.50 "helping other people" money
>
>We started this when she was 3. Each year her allowance goes up, as does the
>expectations of what she will do with it-- as of this year, she is
>responsible for her own craft supplies. She has so much stuff that I don't
>expect this to be an issue for a few years, but it has changed her attitude
>towards the supplies some.
>
>She immediately understood the power of saving, which surprised me. She
>actually had saved quite a bit in her "short term" savings bank, but then
>spent it down. She now has about $20, and is paralyzed trying to decide
>which thing she wants to spend it on. She has to decide on something before
>going to the store, and I've mostly instituted a 24 hour period between
>deciding on something and buying it.
>
>I'm still struggling with the tying it to chores concept...

I agree that there are at least SOME chores that should be expected
regardless of and not related to allowance.

For instance - my son mowed the lawn - it wasn't something I
compensated him for - it was an expected job that he did. He liked it
because it was as close as he could come to driving when he was
younger than 16. My children were always required to care for their
horses - it wasn't something that I EVER did, with the exception that
when one of the horses had an eye injury that required putting
ointment in the eye during the time they were in school, I would go
down to the barn and do that. Getting their clothes to the laundry to
be done, keeping their room straight, loading the dishwasher, setting
and clearing the table, taking care of their own personal hygiene and
doing their homework and practicing their musical instruments ---
those were things they had to do regardless.

The only time chores were paid for was if
a) they wanted to earn some extra money and ASKed for something to do
for it (after their ordinary chores were done) or
b) There was something that I was thinking of paying someone else to
do.

I'm not even sure that I think the money should be entailed - that the
child should have to save or have to donate to charity. I agree those
are worthy causes, but if the child is forced to do it that way, how
will they learn to budget for themselves? I had enough money as a
child to cover my 'expenses' - i.e. my dues and the amount of money I
had pledged to church, but there was some element of choice there.

grandma Rosalie

[Elizabeth King]

> While I understand that lots of folks tie the allowance to chores, I
> have not. For one thing, I think everyone who lives in a house should
> have some share of the $$ coming in, and I think everyone who lives in a
> house should share in its maintenance and upkeep (ie, chores). Those
> two facts are unrelated.

I agree completely philisophically.

I'm finding the temptation to use it as motivation for chores to be strong--
thanks for giving me some practical reasons to think that this isn't such a
good idea.

liz

[LFortier]

Kevin Karplus wrote:

>I'd like to see that thread---how much do people give as an allowance?
>is is free money or does it have to be earned? does the child have to
>buy anything out of the allowance? how much guidance is given on
>spending? ...
>
>
>
>
Both our girls get an allowance of $3 per week. We do the splitting in
thirds thing - one part is spending money, one part goes to the bank
after a period of accumulation and the last third goes in the collection
basket at church. Currently it's not tied to chores, though that could
be something that could be docked if we had a behavior problem, at least
the spending third.

Currently they're not paying any of their own expenses, though I've
liked the ideas floated here and in mk for a clothing allowance in a few
years for my oldest.

Lesley

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"Elizabeth King" > wrote:

> > While I understand that lots of folks tie the allowance to chores, I
> > have not. For one thing, I think everyone who lives in a house should
> > have some share of the $$ coming in, and I think everyone who lives in a
> > house should share in its maintenance and upkeep (ie, chores). Those
> > two facts are unrelated.
>
> I agree completely philisophically.
>
> I'm finding the temptation to use it as motivation for chores to be strong--
> thanks for giving me some practical reasons to think that this isn't such a
> good idea.
>
> liz
>
>
>

Once in a while, I used to dock the kids' allowances for NOT doing
chores, but I stated it as a fee: they were paying ME for having to do
THIER chores. However, I decided it was a bad precident: I don't
really want my kids to think of me as a domestic available for hire! I
could just see my son, especially, deciding now that he'd pay me for
doing his chores . . . I hate housework . . .

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[David desJardins]

Cathy Kearns writes:
> So you should not see children dancing on pointe, the youngest
> performers you should see on pointe are in their teens. If this is
> followed, ballet is not really bad for the feet any more than soccer
> is really bad for the knees and ankles or tennis is really bad for the
> elbows.

You may be right, but I'm skeptical. While soccer players are certainly
at some risk of knee injuries (to take your example), I see two
differences from ballet.

First, most of what soccer players are doing is using their knees in the
manner that knees are designed (by evolution) to operate. Knees are
designed for running, turning, kicking. Ballet, on the other hand, uses
the feet in what seems to me a very artificial way, very different from
anything that pre-civilized humans would do with their feet. (On the
other hand, it's true that what makes soccer most dangerous is precisely
the use of spikes, which allow the foot to be planted much more firmly
than one could without spikes or even shoes, thus making it possible to
put a lot of extra stress on the knee. Needless to say, I think this
isn't a good thing.)

Secondly, soccer has a lot of benefits for the knee, as well as risks.
Exercise strengthens the muscles that hold the knee together and operate
it, which reduces the risk of injuries (both soccer and non-soccer
related). No doubt it's certainly also true that ballet strengthens the
ability of the foot to perform ballet; however, what it's not really
doing is strengthening the ability of the foot to do what the foot is
normally supposed to do (while the strengthening of the legs and knees
through soccer is valuable in all sorts of daily activities). For this
reason, soccer seems more health-promoting, to me.

David desJardins

[Cathy Kearns]

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Cathy Kearns writes:
> > So you should not see children dancing on pointe, the youngest
> > performers you should see on pointe are in their teens. If this is
> > followed, ballet is not really bad for the feet any more than soccer
> > is really bad for the knees and ankles or tennis is really bad for the
> > elbows.
>
> You may be right, but I'm skeptical. While soccer players are certainly
> at some risk of knee injuries (to take your example), I see two
> differences from ballet.
>
> First, most of what soccer players are doing is using their knees in the
> manner that knees are designed (by evolution) to operate. Knees are
> designed for running, turning, kicking. Ballet, on the other hand, uses
> the feet in what seems to me a very artificial way, very different from
> anything that pre-civilized humans would do with their feet. (On the
> other hand, it's true that what makes soccer most dangerous is precisely
> the use of spikes, which allow the foot to be planted much more firmly
> than one could without spikes or even shoes, thus making it possible to
> put a lot of extra stress on the knee. Needless to say, I think this
> isn't a good thing.)

I find it interesting you are using soccer as an example. You
really think pre-civilized humans would stop things with their
heads?
I coach soccer, and played organized soccer on a team myself
until I was in my 40s. We would lose at least a lady a week in
our league due to knee or ankle injuries, and we weren't
ultra competitive. I know for the college level athlete, having a
knee or ankle injury that keeps you out part or all of a season
is not that rare. My daughter's dance studio owner had a lovely
daughter that danced on pointe and played high school and club
soccer. Three guesses what put her on crutches. But she still
loves soccer, and has a college scholarship. I would never say
to a kid that loves soccer, or football, or tennis, or whatever
activity they are into to give it up because there are risks. There
are risks in everything. I would help them get the best training
possible so they have the chance to pursue their goals with the
least amount of risk possible.

> Secondly, soccer has a lot of benefits for the knee, as well as risks.
> Exercise strengthens the muscles that hold the knee together and operate
> it, which reduces the risk of injuries (both soccer and non-soccer
> related).

I tended to have less ankle injuries than any other of the ladies on
my soccer team. My ankles are very strong and flexible, due
to tap dancing. As much as I'd like to think soccer was good
for my knees and ankles, I just didn't see it.

>No doubt it's certainly also true that ballet strengthens the
> ability of the foot to perform ballet; however, what it's not really
> doing is strengthening the ability of the foot to do what the foot is
> normally supposed to do (while the strengthening of the legs and knees
> through soccer is valuable in all sorts of daily activities).

Many professional athletes use ballet to strengthen their knees and
legs to do sports such as soccer. Though there are exercises
coaches can give to strengthen knees and legs, playing soccer
itself doesn't. It does give great aerobic exercise, much like
running, but it more dangerous than running on a track due to
the uneven surface of most pitches. (But most kids find
running on a track dreadfully boring, while soccer can be
great fun.) Dancing can be just as aerobic as soccer,
and both dancers and soccer players who practice 8 to 10
hours a week are in great shape. Dancing helps in everyday
life by making even the young dancers more graceful, as
well as giving them great exercise. Dancing tends to improve
flexiblity, which strengthens back and abdominal muscles.
I'd say my dancer daughter gets injured less than her soccer
playing friends. And my dancer daughter can run the mile
faster than her soccer playing friends without any practice
running. (Required for PE.) But both the dancers and the
soccer players are getting good exercise doing something they love.
And that's the real point, you need to find something they love.

[Cathy Kearns]

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Cathy Kearns writes:
> It's not just a strawman. Every activity has benefits and risks. The
> right analysis isn't, "Well, pick whatever activity you want, without
> regard to the risks, and then do the best you can to minimize the
> risks." The right analysis is to weigh the benefits and risks and then
> make a decision.

I agree, but benefits include ensuring a kid gets enough exercise.
If the activity is such the kids love it enough to pursue it, put in
the practice, without the parents pushing, then that's a benefit.
Unfortunately I see too many young teens whose only exercise
is PE class at school. They never found a sport or activity they
like. They are out of shape, get tired easily, and it affects their
studies in that they are too tired and unmotivated to get all their
homework done. They get bored after school, and are more
likely to get pulled into trouble.

>
> There are other activities that I don't think pass the benefit/risk
> test, like skiing, which I think is too dangerous for me and my family.
> Obviously, it's inherently a subjective judgment, but making subjective
> judgments is what people (and parents) do.

See, my family just think skiing requires snow, which we think is too
cold:-)

> > Dancing can be just as aerobic as soccer, and both dancers and soccer
> > players who practice 8 to 10 hours a week are in great shape. Dancing
> > helps in everyday life by making even the young dancers more graceful,
> > as well as giving them great exercise. Dancing tends to improve
> > flexiblity, which strengthens back and abdominal muscles. I'd say my
> > dancer daughter gets injured less than her soccer playing friends.
> > And my dancer daughter can run the mile faster than her soccer playing
> > friends without any practice running.
>
> Of course this is all perfectly true. Ballet can be good for your
> health in plenty of ways, and still be bad for your feet.
>
> Everything that I've read on the subject says that it's "normal", and
> expected, for serious ballet dancers to have deformed feet that hurt a
> lot. I just don't think that's good, and I don't think it makes sense.
> Ballet is a created art form, and people should create activities that
> are healthy, not painful and crippling, no matter how "pretty" they
> think that is.
>
> Here's a random link I found surfing the web:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/story/0,3604,249828,00.html
>
> It's easy to find lots of other stories like this one.

I think you are confusing serious dancing with activities for
our kids. Yes there will be serious ballet dancers, and football
players, and olympic gymnists, and college level soccer players,
and professional basket ball players and tennis players. And
all of those have similiar stories of how their bodies have
suffered for their sport. But if we are talking about activities
for our kids, well that is a different plane. For the many, many
pointe dancers that don't intend to make a career of it, the teachers
don't put them on their toes for more than 1/2 hour
a week. (And remember, kids must take ballet for at least
2 years and be 12 years old before they are even considered
for pointe) No, they can't dance the Swan Lake, but they
can do a 3 minute variation, and that makes them
happy. There are many more ballet dancers that never take
pointe at all. They still dance in the school Nutcracker,
just not on pointe.

If you can like a sport without assuming you need to take
it to a pre-professional level, (for instance, in soccer they
tell us not to coach heading the ball to young kids. I don't
teach it to recreational leagues at all...) you must understand
that all ballet isn't pointe, and all pointe isn't professional
level pointe.


>
> David desJardins
>

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >,
Cathy Kearns wrote:
> I agree, but benefits include ensuring a kid gets enough exercise.
> If the activity is such the kids love it enough to pursue it, put in
> the practice, without the parents pushing, then that's a benefit.
> Unfortunately I see too many young teens whose only exercise
> is PE class at school. They never found a sport or activity they
> like. They are out of shape, get tired easily, and it affects their
> studies in that they are too tired and unmotivated to get all their
> homework done. They get bored after school, and are more
> likely to get pulled into trouble.

As a person who has always hated sports and felt as a kid that PE
classes were invented simply to give sadists a job, I worry sometimes
about how to ensure that my child gets enough exercise, without
putting him through torture.

So far I have several approaches, none of which is perfect.

1) We don't have a car, so everywhere we go we walk or bicycle.
This is how I get my aerobic exercise, and it has the
advantage of providing the exercise as part of doing something
else, so one doesn't have to make a special point of exercising.
It also has the advantage of being something you can genuinely
keep up almost all your life (unlike most sports) and does not
require special equipment, fitness clubs, or huge numbers of
other people with compatible schedules and similar interests.

2) My son is in swimming classes (currently twice a week). It
isn't a lot of exercise, but I think that learning to swim
is an important life skill.

3) My son is in aikido classes twice a week. The exercise is
not very vigorous (in the young kids class---it gets more
strenuous for the older kids and adults), but learning how to
fall safely is an important life skill, and the class helps with
posture and balance.

--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[Iowacookiemom]

wrote:

>I agree, but benefits include ensuring a kid gets enough exercise.
>If the activity is such the kids love it enough to pursue it, put in
>the practice, without the parents pushing, then that's a benefit.
>Unfortunately I see too many young teens whose only exercise
>is PE class at school. They never found a sport or activity they
>like. They are out of shape, get tired easily, and it affects their
>studies in that they are too tired and unmotivated to get all their
>homework done. They get bored after school, and are more
>likely to get pulled into trouble.

Those are pretty sweeping generalizations. How do you know they are not in a
sport or activity? Are you simply eyeballing, figuring they look out of shape,
and making these assumptions? Are you able to monitor all potetial
activities/sports? Are you asking them?

My son has tried numerous sports and while he likes developing skill, he
dislikes the personal characteristics that competition seems to pull out of
some of his otherwise-nice friends. He simply isn't competitive... at all.
Both my husband and I are competitive and so it's not like we've trained this
out of him. He would get angry after losing basketball games, not because they
lost, but because his teammates would ruin his feeling of general satisfaction
at the effort and the exhileration of the exercise by ranting to each other
about whose fault it was that they lost.

If you saw my son, you'd assume he is in great shape. I doubt you'd draw the
conclusions you mention above about him. He has not an ounce of fat on him and
appears to be very athletic. And he is. But by choice he is in absolutely no
organized activity that promotes his athleticism. He gets his exercise in the
privacy of our home -- he does not enjoy group activities, even individual
sports like swimming, because he doesn't like the pressure of competition and
he doesn't appreciate the nasty side of some people that comes out when they
are competing.

If you asked him, he would tell you he does no sport and he'd mean it. He
wouldn't tell you about the running around after the dogs, the endless hours in
the pool this summer, the long sessions shooting baskets in the driveway. He's
learned, at his tender age of 10, that to most people sports=organized team
competition.

We continue to hope that he will eventually learn how to ignore the negative
aspects of athletic competition so that he can benefit from the many
self-esteem building and teamwork aspects, but he may never get there. In the
meantime we give him opportunities to stay in shape on his own terms. I expect
other kids feel this same way, and if they do not appear to be in great shape
they may fall under the type of scrutiny/judgment you describe.

And when parents have these attitudes, they are in danger of passing it along
to their kids -- so that the kids themselves end up perpetuating the problem.
I was a perpetually "last chosen" kid when we chose teams in school. At an
early age I got the message that I was no good in sports and I fulfilled that
beautifully. Only as an adult was I able to discover I had any athletic
ability at all. I think pidgeon-holing kids who do not participate or appear
to be out of shape does little to solve the problem; in fact, it may serve to
make it worse.

I think in this, as in other threads currently alive, we'd all do well not to
make generalizations about other kids/parents when we don't know their full
reality.

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 10

[Cathy Kearns]

"Iowacookiemom" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >I agree, but benefits include ensuring a kid gets enough exercise.
> >If the activity is such the kids love it enough to pursue it, put in
> >the practice, without the parents pushing, then that's a benefit.
> >Unfortunately I see too many young teens whose only exercise
> >is PE class at school. They never found a sport or activity they
> >like. They are out of shape, get tired easily, and it affects their
> >studies in that they are too tired and unmotivated to get all their
> >homework done. They get bored after school, and are more
> >likely to get pulled into trouble.
>
> Those are pretty sweeping generalizations. How do you know they are not
in a
> sport or activity? Are you simply eyeballing, figuring they look out of
shape,
> and making these assumptions? Are you able to monitor all potetial
> activities/sports? Are you asking them?

Their parents are complaining to me. They are asking how I get my
kids to love activities that give them exercise and focus. I think it
really plays on their minds when the kids start going to junior high.
I gotta tell you, I don't know. I just try billions of things. We ride
bikes
to school from kinder on, yet my oldest is now within walking
distance of high school, and has said she would never bike again.
My younger one wants to learn to ride with dad on the back of
the tandem for our 30 mile rides. My older one won't try anything
else but dance anymore, that is her passion. My younger one is
9, she has taken golf, ice skating, and gymnastics. Presently
she does girl scouts, soccer, dance (ballet, jazz, tap), English
riding, and tennis. I don't know how to get them to pick, other
than saying, to pick up something new (softball?) you need to
drop something.

I'm sure some kids are doing fine, their parents aren't calling
up to see if my daughter will make them ride to school, or
drag them to a dance class. And I haven't seen your kid.
But for kids who don't like competition, I have seen that
dogs are a good form of exercise, as well as dance.

[David desJardins]

Cathy Kearns writes:
>> Everything that I've read on the subject says that it's "normal", and
>> expected, for serious ballet dancers to have deformed feet that hurt
>> a lot.
>
> I think you are confusing serious dancing with activities for our
> kids. Yes there will be serious ballet dancers, and football players,
> and olympic gymnists, and college level soccer players, and
> professional basket ball players and tennis players. And all of those
> have similiar stories of how their bodies have suffered for their
> sport.

I guess I'm naive. I didn't think that most "serious" soccer players,
or gymnasts, or basketball players, or tennis players, have chronic,
painful deformities and disabilities as a result of their sport. But
maybe they all do, and I don't realize it. I admit I don't really know
a lot about professional sports.

David desJardins

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>As a person who has always hated sports and felt as a kid that PE
>classes were invented simply to give sadists a job, I worry sometimes
>about how to ensure that my child gets enough exercise, without
>putting him through torture.

If you're lucky enough to have a PE teacher like the one at my kids' school, it
will *not* be torture. He has all kinds of really interesting activities, he
has each kid work on personalized fitness goals, not competitive ones (you get
lots of praise for improving your time on the mile run, for instance, not for
beating someone else at it), and what's more he does things like take time
outside school hours to go to some of the kids' track meets and softball games
and stuff, nothing to do with the school. And he's there after school when
there are kids staying late to play on the playground, and lets them borrow
equipment. One day he did his best to referee a bitter quarrel between my
daughters and get them communicating more calmly.

A kid who was a complete gym flake might still not find gym interesting, of
course, even under these circumstances, but it would at least be bearable and
humane.

--Helen

[Rosalie B.]

David desJardins > wrote:

>Cathy Kearns writes:
>>> Everything that I've read on the subject says that it's "normal", and
>>> expected, for serious ballet dancers to have deformed feet that hurt
>>> a lot.
>>
>> I think you are confusing serious dancing with activities for our
>> kids. Yes there will be serious ballet dancers, and football players,
>> and olympic gymnists, and college level soccer players, and
>> professional basket ball players and tennis players. And all of those
>> have similiar stories of how their bodies have suffered for their
>> sport.
>
>I guess I'm naive. I didn't think that most "serious" soccer players,
>or gymnasts, or basketball players, or tennis players, have chronic,
>painful deformities and disabilities as a result of their sport. But
>maybe they all do, and I don't realize it. I admit I don't really know
>a lot about professional sports.

I do know that serious gymnasts have chronic injuries and that makes
picking the Olympic teams difficult because once someone is on the
team you can substitute after a certain point.

I know that there's a lady on the Washington DC pro basketball team
who is chronically injured. Even swimmers can have chronic shoulder
problems if they don't use the joints right. An I am completely
unable to do breast stroke kick because it stresses my knees too much
and makes them so painful that I can't do steps. The lady who won the
Los Angelos Olympic Marathon had to have knee surgery.

Little league pitchers are restricted in the number of innings they
may pitch in order to avoid the kind of shoulder and arm injuries that
are often a problem - didn't Sandy Kofax retire because of that?

Much of the time the injuries come back in later life as arthritis or
the like.

grandma Rosalie

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
David desJardins > wrote:

> Cathy Kearns writes:
> >> Everything that I've read on the subject says that it's "normal", and
> >> expected, for serious ballet dancers to have deformed feet that hurt
> >> a lot.
> >
> > I think you are confusing serious dancing with activities for our
> > kids. Yes there will be serious ballet dancers, and football players,
> > and olympic gymnists, and college level soccer players, and
> > professional basket ball players and tennis players. And all of those
> > have similiar stories of how their bodies have suffered for their
> > sport.
>
> I guess I'm naive. I didn't think that most "serious" soccer players,
> or gymnasts, or basketball players, or tennis players, have chronic,
> painful deformities and disabilities as a result of their sport. But
> maybe they all do, and I don't realize it. I admit I don't really know
> a lot about professional sports.
>

All you have to do is listen to a couple of days of commentary on the
next set of Olympic broadcasts, and you'll hear an earful about
injuries. I think any sport or activity pursued at the professional or
high-achieving amateur level is going to pose some insult to the body.
I know swimmers and tennis players with shoulder problems, and even
amateur tennis players who play regularly and have to wear knee braces.
I once knew a professional classical guitar player who was sidelined for
years with an injured tendon in his hand, and there are orthopedists who
confine their practices to hand and arm problems in musicians and make a
very nice living. I don't know if there's any such thing as a typical
golf injury, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Repetition may be the mother of learning, but it's also the mother of
repetitive stress injuries.

[David desJardins]

Cathy Kearns writes:
> I think you are confusing serious dancing with activities for our
> kids.

> If you can like a sport without assuming you need to take it to a
> pre-professional level, (for instance, in soccer they tell us not to
> coach heading the ball to young kids. I don't teach it to
> recreational leagues at all...) you must understand that all ballet
> isn't pointe, and all pointe isn't professional level pointe.

Let's say, then, that there's a huge problem in how ballet is advertised
and promoted to small children. I have lots of picture books about
ballet, aimed at toddlers through preschool to early elementary ages,
and it's hard to find a single one in which all the dancers aren't
walking around on their toes most of the time, even children who appear
to be much younger than teenagers. My two-year-old daughter started
walking around on her toes, after reading many of these books.

I've pretty much nipped this in the bud, by explaining that walking on
your toes is bad for your feet. (Now my daughter will point at the
pictures in these books and say, "She's going to hurt her feet!" Which
is true enough, as you admit, so it seems a healthier reaction than
idolizing it.)

Certainly part of the problem lies with the authors of children's books.
But these authors are getting their ideas from society, and from the
ballet world, and from the images that the ballet world chooses to
promote of itself. The classical ballet world *does* choose to present
pointe as the apotheosis of ballet, the pinnacle of achievement, to be
valued and emulated. I think there's something wrong with that, both in
terms of the choice itself (even among adults who can freely consent,
why choose something harmful over less physically damaging
alternatives), and especially in terms of what it says about priorities
regarding health and fitness, compared to arbitrary invented norms of
"beauty" and "style", to impressionable children.

(From what I've seen, most ballet *teachers* to small children are
indeed responsible, in the way that you describe, in what they teach.
It's the larger "professional" ballet world that I have a problem with,
not the dance classes for children (in general).)

David desJardins

[Cathy Kearns]

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Cathy Kearns writes:
> > I think you are confusing serious dancing with activities for our
> > kids.
>
> > If you can like a sport without assuming you need to take it to a
> > pre-professional level, (for instance, in soccer they tell us not to
> > coach heading the ball to young kids. I don't teach it to
> > recreational leagues at all...) you must understand that all ballet
> > isn't pointe, and all pointe isn't professional level pointe.
>
> Let's say, then, that there's a huge problem in how ballet is advertised
> and promoted to small children. I have lots of picture books about
> ballet, aimed at toddlers through preschool to early elementary ages,
> and it's hard to find a single one in which all the dancers aren't
> walking around on their toes most of the time, even children who appear
> to be much younger than teenagers. My two-year-old daughter started
> walking around on her toes, after reading many of these books.

There are many going to ballet books, with real pictures, that show
real little girls in tutus dancing without pointe shoes. We used to have
quite a few of those books. Look for the easy to read books, they
tend to lean toward stories of real kids.

> Certainly part of the problem lies with the authors of children's books.
> But these authors are getting their ideas from society, and from the
> ballet world, and from the images that the ballet world chooses to
> promote of itself. The classical ballet world *does* choose to present
> pointe as the apotheosis of ballet, the pinnacle of achievement, to be
> valued and emulated. I think there's something wrong with that, both in
> terms of the choice itself (even among adults who can freely consent,
> why choose something harmful over less physically damaging
> alternatives), and especially in terms of what it says about priorities
> regarding health and fitness, compared to arbitrary invented norms of
> "beauty" and "style", to impressionable children.

I have to agree with you there. I'm especially annoyed about the latest
flap at the Bolshoi, with the ballet telling the news organizations that
their prima ballerina was let go because she was too heavy to lift
at 110 lbs. Yeah right. In the recreational schools there are boys
lifting girls much heavier than 110 lbs. Are they trying to say the
men at the Bolshoi are wimpy? I think they should go with the
truth, there were working problems that had nothing whatsoever
to do with her weight, and 110 lbs isn't heavy. Calling 110 lbs at 5'6"
too heavy implied the ideal body the ballet profession is looking
for is even more ridiculous than it really is. (And the dance
professional know the inside story, and it has nothing to do with
weight.)

> (From what I've seen, most ballet *teachers* to small children are
> indeed responsible, in the way that you describe, in what they teach.
> It's the larger "professional" ballet world that I have a problem with,
> not the dance classes for children (in general).)

Indeed, I think all the sensible dance folks teach.

>
> David desJardins
>

[Cheryl]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:00:49 EDT, David desJardins
> wrote:


>Let's say, then, that there's a huge problem in how ballet is advertised
>and promoted to small children. I have lots of picture books about
>ballet, aimed at toddlers through preschool to early elementary ages,
>and it's hard to find a single one in which all the dancers aren't
>walking around on their toes most of the time, even children who appear
>to be much younger than teenagers. My two-year-old daughter started
>walking around on her toes, after reading many of these books.

After reading this thread, I noticed something today that will
probably add fuel to the fire. In _Barbie of Swan Lake_ they showed
several of the young characters (Kelly and friends dolls) dancing. In
one particular scene I watched their feet and these young girls were
dancing pointe. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, the animation is
based on the NYC ballet company and they likely filmed adult
ballerinas dancing this particular scene, but what it shows to young
children is that Kelly (who did not dance pointe in _Barbie in the
Nutcracker_) as a young girl can dance pointe. My 3 year old son has
been walking around on his toes ever since the first time he watched
_Barbie in the Nutcracker_ but I had hopes of breaking him of this
since the younger characters didn't dance pointe, now I won't have
much chance.


--
Cheryl
Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00)
and DD (30 Jul 02)

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
"Cathy Kearns" > wrote:
>
> I have to agree with you there. I'm especially annoyed about the latest
> flap at the Bolshoi, with the ballet telling the news organizations that
> their prima ballerina was let go because she was too heavy to lift
> at 110 lbs. Yeah right. In the recreational schools there are boys
> lifting girls much heavier than 110 lbs. Are they trying to say the
> men at the Bolshoi are wimpy? I think they should go with the
> truth, there were working problems that had nothing whatsoever
> to do with her weight, and 110 lbs isn't heavy. Calling 110 lbs at 5'6"
> too heavy implied the ideal body the ballet profession is looking
> for is even more ridiculous than it really is.


This is the very reason I steered my daughter away from ballet, and
gymnastics, too, when she started wanting to take lessons. She was
about four at the time, so it would have been a few years before it was
an issue, but we could see already that though she is a sturdy, athletic
child and anything but fat, she was never going to be the gymnastics or
ballet "type." The last thing I wanted in the world was for her to fall
in love with a certain activity, only to be barred from the top team, or
relegated to the back of the stage, when she was 8 or 9 or 10--or ever,
in fact--because she's big and strong rather than tiny and flexible.
It's one thing not to be a star because you decide there are things
you'd rather do than practice, and quite another to be rejected out of
hand because your body is wrong.

So she's doing martial arts at the moment--a sport apparently free of
body-type prejudice, at least at our school--and she has instructors,
men and women, of all shapes and sizes. And I expect that if she
decides she wants to, she'll eventually shine at sports like basketball
and volleyball and tennis and swimming, where her body type is welcomed.

[Cathy Kearns]

"Elizabeth Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Cathy Kearns" > wrote:
> >
> > I have to agree with you there. I'm especially annoyed about the latest
> > flap at the Bolshoi, with the ballet telling the news organizations that
> > their prima ballerina was let go because she was too heavy to lift
> > at 110 lbs. Yeah right. In the recreational schools there are boys
> > lifting girls much heavier than 110 lbs. Are they trying to say the
> > men at the Bolshoi are wimpy? I think they should go with the
> > truth, there were working problems that had nothing whatsoever
> > to do with her weight, and 110 lbs isn't heavy. Calling 110 lbs at 5'6"
> > too heavy implied the ideal body the ballet profession is looking
> > for is even more ridiculous than it really is.
>
>
> This is the very reason I steered my daughter away from ballet, and
> gymnastics, too, when she started wanting to take lessons. She was
> about four at the time, so it would have been a few years before it was
> an issue, but we could see already that though she is a sturdy, athletic
> child and anything but fat, she was never going to be the gymnastics or
> ballet "type." The last thing I wanted in the world was for her to fall
> in love with a certain activity, only to be barred from the top team, or
> relegated to the back of the stage, when she was 8 or 9 or 10--or ever,
> in fact--because she's big and strong rather than tiny and flexible.

Though I'm sure there are dance schools that would relegate 10 year
olds to the back row because they aren't sticks, I think those school
are already few and far between, and shrinking in number. My daughter
would go to dance competitions, and though I don't recommend them,
for other reasons, you would see that there are great dancers of
every shape and size, at the very top levels of their studios. Definitely
in the studio dance world, you put your best dancers in the front
no matter what size they are. And I have seen fantastic big athletic
dancers not only do well in the competitions, but make livings
teaching at competitions.

In professional modern dance size is also not important. And there
are many great modern dancers that are very athletic, but not at all
sinewy thin.

However, I would never steer a child away from any activity because
I thought they might not be able to take it up professionally. There
are many adult dancers that just love to dance, as well as adult
swimmers, softball players, athletes, and musicians, that don't
necessarily make a living at their favorite hobby. If my five year
old wanted to take gymnastics and the teachers are happy teaching
kids who won't be future olympic stars, then I'd go for it.

> So she's doing martial arts at the moment--a sport apparently free of
> body-type prejudice, at least at our school--and she has instructors,
> men and women, of all shapes and sizes. And I expect that if she
> decides she wants to, she'll eventually shine at sports like basketball
> and volleyball and tennis and swimming, where her body type is welcomed.

Her body type is welcome many more places than you are assuming.

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
"Cathy Kearns" > wrote:

> "Elizabeth Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Cathy Kearns" > wrote:

>
> However, I would never steer a child away from any activity because
> I thought they might not be able to take it up professionally. There
> are many adult dancers that just love to dance, as well as adult
> swimmers, softball players, athletes, and musicians, that don't
> necessarily make a living at their favorite hobby. If my five year
> old wanted to take gymnastics and the teachers are happy teaching
> kids who won't be future olympic stars, then I'd go for it.
>

That's the trick, though. The gymnastics programs in our area are fine
for five and six year olds, psychologically speaking, but the kids who
continue are soon separated out into competitive and noncompetitive
groups. If my daughter were noncompetitive by nature, I wouldn't mind
if she were shunted into the second group (as I think she probably would
be, from what I've observed of her flexibililty compared with other kids
her age), but she would really feel bad about it because she is, in
fact, highly competitive. I'm not sure how it would work out for dance
(though I'm pretty sure she'd be in the back row for ballet, for the
flexibility issue mentioned above).

There's plenty of time when she's a bit older for her to toughen up
about competitive situations. There's also plenty of time for her to
take up dance if that's where her bliss turns out to be. If there's
room in dance for all body types, then there's probably room for people
who didn't start when they were tykes. I'm comfortable that the
physical skills she's picking up through karate will be useful no matter
what other athletic activities she takes up. And while there are some
competitive elements to it (sparring, tournaments, etc.), the kids are
competing primarily against themselves rather than one another. I think
that's a healthier way to go, for my particular kid at this particular
point.

[E]

dragonlady wrote:
> In article >,
> (Splanche) wrote:
>
>>> As a religious professional, I'd prefer that you explain that
>>> church is a sort of religious cooperative: it takes money from
>>> everybody to run it. Even if EVERYONE had money, you would still
>>> have to pledge or put in the collection plate to maintain the
>>> building (or pay rent), pay the staff, pay for the paper that the
>>> newsletter is printed on, pay for the hymnals, heat the building,
>>> pay for lights . . . giving at church, unless you are specifically
>>> giving to a restricted fund, is not the same as charitable giving
>>> to help support people who are poor, though your church may
>>> opperate programs that do that with some of the collected funds, as
>>> well.
>>
>> I'm not sure how all churches work, but my synagogue has annual dues
>> (paid by check quarterly) that my child doesn't see. What she does
>> see is the money that
>> we put in the charity (tzedakah) box weekly.
>>
>> I would assume that there are also some churches that are similar,
>> and that the
>> collections made there weekly are in fact stricly for charity. YMMV.
>> - Blanche
>>
>
> There may be some, but I am not aware of any; the church for which I
> work does have one Sunday a month where the offering goes to a charity
> selected by the board, and some have second collections for charity --
> but I don't know of any that have dues to support the church;
> generally, the $$ in the collection plate is part of what supports the
> church.
>
> meh
> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you
> care

they aren't dues, but what you have *pledged* to give. at the begining (or
just before) you were probably asked to pledge and tell the church how much
you were expecting to give during the year so that they would be able to
budget for the year. that should go in the envelope that they provide so
that they know who to attribute the money to, and also send you a receipt at
the end of the year for tax purposes. quite often the loose cash will go
towards extra things above and beyond the budget, or other charity type
things.
--
Edith
oht nak

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"E" > wrote:


> >>
> >> I'm not sure how all churches work, but my synagogue has annual dues
> >> (paid by check quarterly) that my child doesn't see. What she does
> >> see is the money that
> >> we put in the charity (tzedakah) box weekly.
> >>
> >> I would assume that there are also some churches that are similar,
> >> and that the
> >> collections made there weekly are in fact stricly for charity. YMMV.
> >> - Blanche
> >>
> >
> > There may be some, but I am not aware of any; the church for which I
> > work does have one Sunday a month where the offering goes to a charity
> > selected by the board, and some have second collections for charity --
> > but I don't know of any that have dues to support the church;
> > generally, the $$ in the collection plate is part of what supports the
> > church.
> >
> > meh
> > --
> > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you
> > care
>
> they aren't dues, but what you have *pledged* to give. at the begining (or
> just before) you were probably asked to pledge and tell the church how much
> you were expecting to give during the year so that they would be able to
> budget for the year. that should go in the envelope that they provide so
> that they know who to attribute the money to, and also send you a receipt at
> the end of the year for tax purposes. quite often the loose cash will go
> towards extra things above and beyond the budget, or other charity type
> things.

The congregations which I have been close enough to to know how they
budget have all included "offering collections" as part of their
budgeting: we anticipate what we will collect over and above pledges,
and that is included in the "income" portion of our budget. Frankly,
it's been a (minor) problem for folks who want to pay in cash, but that
is an increasingly small percentage of the congregation.

We don't hand out pledge envelopes, either -- something that caught me
off guard. Most folks either mail their pledges in or put a check in
the offering plate clearly marked "pledge payment". Or, if you've got a
church that has gone higher tech, like us you have it electronically
transferred once a month. EFT makes life easier for everyone!

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care