There is an answer to the epidemic of short-sightedness - and it's not what you'd expect.
Studies of myopia (short-sightedness) tested children for the amount they read, the amount they watched computer/tv screens, the amount they played sports - none of these were factors.
What mattered was the amount of time they spent outside.
Send your kids outside more, to reduce the likelihood that they'll need glasses.
Reported in New Scientist this month.
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Religion is a poor substitute for ethics?
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on Saturday that a fight is being waged against the introduction of ethics classes in primary schools.
The context: scripture classes. New South Wales allows for one hour per week of religious instruction. Those who opt out of such instruction - as many as 80% in some schools - are not allowed to be placed at an advantage by learning or revising other subjects.
In fact, the quality of the 'scripture' classes, and the availability of different religious options, is fully dictated by the availability of suitable volunteers in each school.
For example, this has meant that at my kids' school, the offerings have for some time included Anglican, Catholic - and Baha'i. And now some parents have felt sufficiently moved to organise a Buddhist class for next year.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW has commissioned the St James Ethical Centre to develop a pilot program to offer ethics classes for those who opt out of scripture.
But the State Government's religious education advisory panel has spoken out against the program (see the report mentioned above).
They don't want those opting out of religous classes to gain unfair advantage? That's akin to saying that a properly focused ethics class provides kids with a sounder ethics education than religious instruction. A rather dangerous admission?
The context: scripture classes. New South Wales allows for one hour per week of religious instruction. Those who opt out of such instruction - as many as 80% in some schools - are not allowed to be placed at an advantage by learning or revising other subjects.
In fact, the quality of the 'scripture' classes, and the availability of different religious options, is fully dictated by the availability of suitable volunteers in each school.
For example, this has meant that at my kids' school, the offerings have for some time included Anglican, Catholic - and Baha'i. And now some parents have felt sufficiently moved to organise a Buddhist class for next year.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW has commissioned the St James Ethical Centre to develop a pilot program to offer ethics classes for those who opt out of scripture.
But the State Government's religious education advisory panel has spoken out against the program (see the report mentioned above).
They don't want those opting out of religous classes to gain unfair advantage? That's akin to saying that a properly focused ethics class provides kids with a sounder ethics education than religious instruction. A rather dangerous admission?
Friday, September 04, 2009
Sayings of the day
"Every time I go to Ireland, Sam Beckett dies."*
and
"Dad, did you have computers when you were little?"
"No."
"You didn't have electricity, then?"
*I'm not actually sure whether it's specific to Beckett. It may be that every time I go to Ireland, a famous Irish writer dies.
and
"Dad, did you have computers when you were little?"
"No."
"You didn't have electricity, then?"
*I'm not actually sure whether it's specific to Beckett. It may be that every time I go to Ireland, a famous Irish writer dies.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Michelle Obama on the parent's challenge
I came across an interview with Michelle Obama, dating from the election campaign. Inter alia, she says (with the emphasis added by me):
I have to admit that until I became a parent, words such as that were just truisms. I think they would remain so for most people until they are cemented by personal experience.
The emphasised words could be construed two ways. On one reading, the parent is feeling good if the children are feeling good. Another interpretation, my preferred, is that the outcomes for the children reflect how successful the parents are at parenting.
Of course, it's not as simple as that. Children are not interchangeable, malleable material. They all come with their own challenges, and some are clearly far more challenging than others.
Still, it's immensely rewarding to witness positive outcomes that you can, at least in part, take some credit for. Or that, in your absence, outcomes could have been notably worse.
Parenting calls for a great amount of time, effort and personal engagement. But the returns - affirmations of one's efforts - can be commensurately great.
8-May-09 Afterthought: I am also reminded of the Roberto Benigni film Life Is Beautiful where, during the second world war, a father manages to shield his son from the external ravages for as long as possible, by making it seem like a game. That shelter is very meaningful to younger children, and while children need to be brought gently into the world, childhood is best when it's a happy, secure treasure.
"[amidst the maelstrom of the campaign] we're always measuring our progress by how our kids are doing. And I think, in that way, we're probably not unlike most parents. We're as good as our kids are. If they're happy and whole, they're feeling confident and loved, and they're doing well in school and they have friends, and, you know, they have a sense of centredness about themselves, then I feel like whatever else is happening, it doesn't really matter."
I have to admit that until I became a parent, words such as that were just truisms. I think they would remain so for most people until they are cemented by personal experience.
The emphasised words could be construed two ways. On one reading, the parent is feeling good if the children are feeling good. Another interpretation, my preferred, is that the outcomes for the children reflect how successful the parents are at parenting.
Of course, it's not as simple as that. Children are not interchangeable, malleable material. They all come with their own challenges, and some are clearly far more challenging than others.
Still, it's immensely rewarding to witness positive outcomes that you can, at least in part, take some credit for. Or that, in your absence, outcomes could have been notably worse.
Parenting calls for a great amount of time, effort and personal engagement. But the returns - affirmations of one's efforts - can be commensurately great.
8-May-09 Afterthought: I am also reminded of the Roberto Benigni film Life Is Beautiful where, during the second world war, a father manages to shield his son from the external ravages for as long as possible, by making it seem like a game. That shelter is very meaningful to younger children, and while children need to be brought gently into the world, childhood is best when it's a happy, secure treasure.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Saudi Arabia's tragic human rights
Of course, when a society treats half its population like chattels at best (liabilities at worse), it stunts the full development and realisation of the whole's potential.
That is not - yet - enough of a problem in Saudia Arabia.
The headline (here) is that the 'most senior' Saudi cleric said "A female who is 10 or 12 is marriageable and those who think she's too young are wrong and are being unfair to her."
In what sense is he using the word unfair? Unfair to the perceived honour of the girl's father and family? It can only have meaning in a society where the dominant culture views a girl as no more than a burdensome responsibility.
The context beyond the headlines relates to the Saudi government's Human Rights Commission, which condemned marriages of girls as an inhuman violation [of them and their rights].
Some comfort could be taken from the fact that such a body exists. Yet it's a long haul if both government and courts lag far behind.
A Saudi court recently dismissed a divorce petition emanating from a girl's mother, saying that only the girl could file - once she reached puberty. Meaning: today's courts are only conducting trivial argy bargy around the fringes of the issue.
As much as anything else, two fundaments should apply to anyone who considers that children, and childhood, should be respected as tantamount to sacred.
First, if there were such a concept as 'informed consent' in Saudi Arabia, a child clearly couldn't give such consent until reaching a deemed level of maturity - and that age being 16 in most countries could be argued to be not protective enough, in this context. Second, the reproductive cycle is impact enough on any woman's body, but going through it before the body is fully matured is potentially quite dangerous.
That is not - yet - enough of a problem in Saudia Arabia.
The headline (here) is that the 'most senior' Saudi cleric said "A female who is 10 or 12 is marriageable and those who think she's too young are wrong and are being unfair to her."
In what sense is he using the word unfair? Unfair to the perceived honour of the girl's father and family? It can only have meaning in a society where the dominant culture views a girl as no more than a burdensome responsibility.
The context beyond the headlines relates to the Saudi government's Human Rights Commission, which condemned marriages of girls as an inhuman violation [of them and their rights].
Some comfort could be taken from the fact that such a body exists. Yet it's a long haul if both government and courts lag far behind.
A Saudi court recently dismissed a divorce petition emanating from a girl's mother, saying that only the girl could file - once she reached puberty. Meaning: today's courts are only conducting trivial argy bargy around the fringes of the issue.
As much as anything else, two fundaments should apply to anyone who considers that children, and childhood, should be respected as tantamount to sacred.
First, if there were such a concept as 'informed consent' in Saudi Arabia, a child clearly couldn't give such consent until reaching a deemed level of maturity - and that age being 16 in most countries could be argued to be not protective enough, in this context. Second, the reproductive cycle is impact enough on any woman's body, but going through it before the body is fully matured is potentially quite dangerous.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Pirates have a "Golden Age"
Speaking of pirates, today my son got a pirate book and model ship for his 7th birthday (thanks, sis).
It's one of the many kids' themes that just seems to knock around eternally*. Dinosaurs seem to be particularly overdone, but there I can weave into the kids' interest some meaningful narrative around evolution. Pirates, fairies, unicorns,... less useful but mostly harmless as kiddie themes, and our children have a good grip on the line between fact and fiction.
Anyway, the book characterises a "Golden Age of Piracy", from 1690 to 1730. It also distinguishes pirates from privateers, those who were granted licence by their country's rulers to attack ships from nations they were at war with.
In depicting a mythologised era, such books are fostering interest in themes that are harmless when seen from a distance. Yet in this case, we are now noticing that these narratives are not so far removed, and we are not fully innoculated from the effects.
Of course, piracy has never entirely disappeared from the earth - for example, it has long existed around the shipping lanes separating southeast Asian mainland from the archipelagoes (such as the Strait of Malacca). And of course, the Gulf of Aden has currency for the Somali pirates operating there.
Not so far removed. Australia is now considering a request to provide naval resources to patrol the seas around Somalia. And my son has a friend whose father is in the navy, which could bring the issue very close to home indeed.
"Golden Age" pirates in the West Indies sometimes found berth in the more lawless ports where they were less likely to be hounded by authorities. Those ports have their mirror in modern-day Somalia, and however freewheelin' it may sound, they are today places that few can feel safe.
It's a minor point perhaps: my beef is with the sanitisation, the stripping of meaning then in particular the romanticisation of something that is not romantic at core, which still has the potential - however latent - to render the trivialisation hypocritical.
* Is piracy as kiddytheme traceable to Stevenson's Treasure Island?
It's one of the many kids' themes that just seems to knock around eternally*. Dinosaurs seem to be particularly overdone, but there I can weave into the kids' interest some meaningful narrative around evolution. Pirates, fairies, unicorns,... less useful but mostly harmless as kiddie themes, and our children have a good grip on the line between fact and fiction.
Anyway, the book characterises a "Golden Age of Piracy", from 1690 to 1730. It also distinguishes pirates from privateers, those who were granted licence by their country's rulers to attack ships from nations they were at war with.
In depicting a mythologised era, such books are fostering interest in themes that are harmless when seen from a distance. Yet in this case, we are now noticing that these narratives are not so far removed, and we are not fully innoculated from the effects.
Of course, piracy has never entirely disappeared from the earth - for example, it has long existed around the shipping lanes separating southeast Asian mainland from the archipelagoes (such as the Strait of Malacca). And of course, the Gulf of Aden has currency for the Somali pirates operating there.
Not so far removed. Australia is now considering a request to provide naval resources to patrol the seas around Somalia. And my son has a friend whose father is in the navy, which could bring the issue very close to home indeed.
"Golden Age" pirates in the West Indies sometimes found berth in the more lawless ports where they were less likely to be hounded by authorities. Those ports have their mirror in modern-day Somalia, and however freewheelin' it may sound, they are today places that few can feel safe.
It's a minor point perhaps: my beef is with the sanitisation, the stripping of meaning then in particular the romanticisation of something that is not romantic at core, which still has the potential - however latent - to render the trivialisation hypocritical.
* Is piracy as kiddytheme traceable to Stevenson's Treasure Island?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Journalistic bent 2: on the NSW child protection report
Like many government agencies around the world with a child protection brief, the New South Wales Department of Community Services is greatly understaffed and underfunded to achieve such aims. This is a tragedy for both individuals and the community. On the one hand, children are utterly precious: their innocence, joy and freedom is something we all aspire too, but mostly lose as we get older. Everyone deserves the opportunity to experience those qualities as long as possible. On the other hand, studies repeatedly show that investment in early intervention (education, income support, parental training, etc) is more than repaid for, in the subsequent adult-span cost savings on health, mental health, crime, and the like.
So to the Herald, front page of Tuesday, November 25:
So to the Herald, front page of Tuesday, November 25:
'High-risk only' child protection (by Adele Horin)
"ONLY children deemed at "significant" risk of harm will need to be reported to the Department of Community Services' help line under a radical plan to reshape the state's overwhelmed child protection system. Others will be referred to a new service to receive assistance.The higher threshold under the state's mandatory reporting laws - achieved by inserting the word "significant" to the law - is designed to potentially triage tens of thousands of calls to the department to enable it to focus on the minority of children in serious danger."
That story survives on the Herald website here, albeit with the toned-down headline 'Mandatory laws to be eased' (a sub-head on the front page). It was indexed via the 'National' section of that day's web pages.
A more conciliatory version of the same article is accessible (here) at smh.com.au, via the 'Breaking news' section of the day before:
Inquiry recommends changes to DoCS [bylined AAP]Only children at risk of "significant harm" will be investigated by NSW child protection officers under reforms that will also see other at-risk kids outsourced to the private sector.
The special commission of inquiry into child protection on Monday finalised its year-long investigation, releasing findings that said the Department of Community Services (DoCS) was swamped by reports that don't warrant its time and effort.
Inquiry head, retired Justice James Wood, has called for changes to the mandatory reporting system so DoCS is only notified of cases where a child is at risk of "significant harm".
Horin's a longtime Herald reporter and columnist on social issues. Looks like she rewrote the original wire story for the front page of the following day. That later, more alarming version probably got read by more people than the online version. At my count, the later version appears on 14 websites, all of them owned by the Herald's owner, Fairfax. The original wire story appears on 7, three of which are Fairfax. It looks to be standard practice that re-written wire stories gain the byline of the re-writer.
I have not attempted to analyse other media's overall response to the event, the release of the report by the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW. However, the head of the inquiry was Justice James Wood, who also headed the Royal Commission into the NSW Police. Without knowing his sociopolitical bent, he seems to have a reasonable reputation.
The Herald beefed up the story for the front page. Was it the right thing to do?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Kids: communication, learning, imagination
I asked my seven-year-old how it looked, when she was staring at a pencil pine.
"Confused", she said.
"Untidy? Like it needed its hair brushed?"
"Yes."
I think her metaphor was the best.
I often find myself explaining to the kids the meaning of an English expression (eg "put a sock in it" which has no literal meaning). We do it all the time, using common expressions as shorthand to convey meaning. But they are not literal, not obvious, and have to be learnt. In this way, as we get older we become more adept at communicating, via such coded phrases.
The standard codebook of expressions (with regional variations) is very useful. But this is at the expense of imaginative thought, and imaginative expression. My daughter's description needed verification to ensure understanding. But at least it wasn't cliche, which is what most of the codebook becomes.
Perhaps this is an inevitable part of the processes of maturing. We learn to communicate more clearly with the aid of a common lexicon, but this is at the expense of imagination, in thought and in expression. And we end up talking in cliches, perhaps also thinking in cliches.
"Confused", she said.
"Untidy? Like it needed its hair brushed?"
"Yes."
I think her metaphor was the best.
I often find myself explaining to the kids the meaning of an English expression (eg "put a sock in it" which has no literal meaning). We do it all the time, using common expressions as shorthand to convey meaning. But they are not literal, not obvious, and have to be learnt. In this way, as we get older we become more adept at communicating, via such coded phrases.
The standard codebook of expressions (with regional variations) is very useful. But this is at the expense of imaginative thought, and imaginative expression. My daughter's description needed verification to ensure understanding. But at least it wasn't cliche, which is what most of the codebook becomes.
Perhaps this is an inevitable part of the processes of maturing. We learn to communicate more clearly with the aid of a common lexicon, but this is at the expense of imagination, in thought and in expression. And we end up talking in cliches, perhaps also thinking in cliches.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Kids: communicating
I used to think the best time to be a father was when the kids were old enough to communicate well with me. But I was mistaken, in several ways.
I found that at each stage of their life, there is a different way of communicating. And it's a learning process for me: how to communicate well at their level, and teach them at the same time. And each level builds upon the previous one.
And in particular, because I'm always learning, there's a richness to be gained all the way through.
I found that at each stage of their life, there is a different way of communicating. And it's a learning process for me: how to communicate well at their level, and teach them at the same time. And each level builds upon the previous one.
And in particular, because I'm always learning, there's a richness to be gained all the way through.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Nippers at Coogee Beach
A letter in today's Herald:
What a wonderful delight to be down on Coogee beach this morning for nippers with my six-year-old daughter.
The excitement of 120 children in that age group screaming with delight as the most comical Santa waited for the right wave to surf on to the beach in his inflatable rescue boat had to be seen to be believed - although it was probably heard as far away as the North Pole. It is difficult to imagine a more quintessential Australian scene.
The whole nippers experience is fantastic for kids - from iconic activities such as flag races, to learning more about water safety as the children get older.
It is so much more productive and fun than sitting on the couch watching cartoons because mum and dad want a sleep in. Not surprisingly there is barely an overweight child involved - and they all had a ball.
James Rosenberg Randwick
My six-year-old daughter was in that same crowd. However, at the time I was looking after my five-year-old (pictured above) in his group; they sure went wild when they saw Santa arrive from the sea, standing up on a rubber dinghy.
What a wonderful delight to be down on Coogee beach this morning for nippers with my six-year-old daughter.
The excitement of 120 children in that age group screaming with delight as the most comical Santa waited for the right wave to surf on to the beach in his inflatable rescue boat had to be seen to be believed - although it was probably heard as far away as the North Pole. It is difficult to imagine a more quintessential Australian scene.
The whole nippers experience is fantastic for kids - from iconic activities such as flag races, to learning more about water safety as the children get older.
It is so much more productive and fun than sitting on the couch watching cartoons because mum and dad want a sleep in. Not surprisingly there is barely an overweight child involved - and they all had a ball.
James Rosenberg Randwick
My six-year-old daughter was in that same crowd. However, at the time I was looking after my five-year-old (pictured above) in his group; they sure went wild when they saw Santa arrive from the sea, standing up on a rubber dinghy.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
First day at school!
Here's the youngest, taken today just before his first day of school, in a photo he chose himself for this post. He's been looking forward to school for ages ("but not till I'm five").This time last year, it was his sister's first day at school. You can see her first-day excitement back then.
She was brim-full of enthusiasm, whereas he's keen, but more relaxed, almost stoic. They both have confidence, but in different ways.
It's worth showing a photo from yesterday, taken just after his sister's first day back at school:
He's often quite natural in front of a camera, albeit less so when he's asked to pose.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
World: Children exposed to too much, too early
A news report details concerns from childhood experts in the UK that children are exposed far too early to adult issues. Yes, this has been raised before, but as they said, we are in an unprecedented era of rapid technological and cultural change. They decry the loss of “real food, real play” – which is undeniably an aspect of most recent times.
I would add to that exposure to issues of sex, violence, and world issues that are too complex to absorb with equanimity.
This is a serious issue. I see in my kids a genuineness, an innocence, that is lost to adults. It’s a magical time, a beauty that is yet easily witnessed by adults. This is a loss to all.
My only thoughts are to feed the children slow food, get them active, and keep them away from any kind of screen as much as possible.
I would add to that exposure to issues of sex, violence, and world issues that are too complex to absorb with equanimity.
This is a serious issue. I see in my kids a genuineness, an innocence, that is lost to adults. It’s a magical time, a beauty that is yet easily witnessed by adults. This is a loss to all.
My only thoughts are to feed the children slow food, get them active, and keep them away from any kind of screen as much as possible.
Monday, April 03, 2006
World: Ownership: you think they’re providing a service; that’s not what they think
A survey conducted by the Australia Institute made an unexpected discovery: going by what the carers themselves thought, childcare in corporate-owned centres was significantly lower quality than in other forms of childcare.
The study, wanted to “probe the views of child-care workers generally on the quality of care.
“But as the responses came in the differences were striking and could not be ignored”, said Institute director Clive Hamilton.
If you think this is all pretty obvious, hear me out and you may be surprised.
The Institute surveyed 578 workers in three general types of childcare: community-owned and run, privately owned (independent) centres, and ones that were owned by corporations, who typically ran a number of centres and were listed on the stock exchange. The general breakdown of attendance in Australia of children who go to childcare is: 30% to non-profit centres; 45% to independent private centres, and 25% to corporate chains.
Responses include:
Is there enough time to develop relationships with individual children? Responses were positive for:
54% in non-profit centres
49% in private centres
25% in corporate centres
Would you avoid sending your own children to such a centre (because of quality concerns)?
4% in non-profit centres
6% in private centres
21% in corporate centres
Does your centre hire more than the regulatory minimum staff?
40% (approx) in non-profit and private centres
14% in corporate centres
The last is telling because studies in the past have consistently shown a direct correlation between quality of care and number of carers.
The margins are similar for most questions, with corporate centres coming off significantly worse, and private centres slightly worse than community-owned centres.
It’s to be expected that when a service is run wholly for the good of the community, the community is the focus and the service is better. However, this also suggests that where profit is involved, the results are only slightly worse, because the owners are closer to the action – typically they will run the centre. Where ownership is entirely divorced from management, the service is significantly worse.
So in general, the motivation for supplying a service makes a difference. But when the managers are (legally) obliged to serve someone else’s profit requirements rather than their own, the service is significantly worse. I guess managers are more willing to sacrifice a little of the profit for the sake of professionalism, a better service, because they're closer to the ground, or somesuch.
That is, of course, a strong feature of the evolution of capitalism: the increasing divorce of ownership from management.
The biggest implication for today is regarding the fad for privatisation of government services. If you care about the service sufficiently, don’t privatise: the service will worsen.
A small diversion
This has interesting applications – if a few years late – for my area of postgraduate study, demutualisation. That is, where a non-profit organisation has transformed into a joint-stock – and thus profit-oriented – company. NRMA, St George Bank, AMP, etc. – most large member-owned organisations in Australia have gone down that route. Typically, the move is pushed entirely by management, who are concerned to improve the ability to raise further capital (for expansion, takeovers, or protection from takeover). I suggest that when a mutual organisation gets large enough, management and ownership are sufficiently divorced that the quality of service is no longer on a par with community-based organisations, with the added detractor that managers do not get the same level of steerage that joint-stock owners give, simply because the ownership is so dispersed. Managers managing for their own ends. With joint-stock companies, there are usually large enough agglomerations of shareholdings that institutions – typically – steer the boat. Note that when St George privatised, they added a sunset clause to ensure that in the first few years, no institution was allowed to own a significant shareholding. It gave the managers a few more years in the sun to better raise capital, without the interference of pesky owners. Never forget that managers and owners have divergent interests.
The study, wanted to “probe the views of child-care workers generally on the quality of care.
“But as the responses came in the differences were striking and could not be ignored”, said Institute director Clive Hamilton.
If you think this is all pretty obvious, hear me out and you may be surprised.
The Institute surveyed 578 workers in three general types of childcare: community-owned and run, privately owned (independent) centres, and ones that were owned by corporations, who typically ran a number of centres and were listed on the stock exchange. The general breakdown of attendance in Australia of children who go to childcare is: 30% to non-profit centres; 45% to independent private centres, and 25% to corporate chains.
Responses include:
Is there enough time to develop relationships with individual children? Responses were positive for:
54% in non-profit centres
49% in private centres
25% in corporate centres
Would you avoid sending your own children to such a centre (because of quality concerns)?
4% in non-profit centres
6% in private centres
21% in corporate centres
Does your centre hire more than the regulatory minimum staff?
40% (approx) in non-profit and private centres
14% in corporate centres
The last is telling because studies in the past have consistently shown a direct correlation between quality of care and number of carers.
The margins are similar for most questions, with corporate centres coming off significantly worse, and private centres slightly worse than community-owned centres.
It’s to be expected that when a service is run wholly for the good of the community, the community is the focus and the service is better. However, this also suggests that where profit is involved, the results are only slightly worse, because the owners are closer to the action – typically they will run the centre. Where ownership is entirely divorced from management, the service is significantly worse.
So in general, the motivation for supplying a service makes a difference. But when the managers are (legally) obliged to serve someone else’s profit requirements rather than their own, the service is significantly worse. I guess managers are more willing to sacrifice a little of the profit for the sake of professionalism, a better service, because they're closer to the ground, or somesuch.
That is, of course, a strong feature of the evolution of capitalism: the increasing divorce of ownership from management.
The biggest implication for today is regarding the fad for privatisation of government services. If you care about the service sufficiently, don’t privatise: the service will worsen.
A small diversion
This has interesting applications – if a few years late – for my area of postgraduate study, demutualisation. That is, where a non-profit organisation has transformed into a joint-stock – and thus profit-oriented – company. NRMA, St George Bank, AMP, etc. – most large member-owned organisations in Australia have gone down that route. Typically, the move is pushed entirely by management, who are concerned to improve the ability to raise further capital (for expansion, takeovers, or protection from takeover). I suggest that when a mutual organisation gets large enough, management and ownership are sufficiently divorced that the quality of service is no longer on a par with community-based organisations, with the added detractor that managers do not get the same level of steerage that joint-stock owners give, simply because the ownership is so dispersed. Managers managing for their own ends. With joint-stock companies, there are usually large enough agglomerations of shareholdings that institutions – typically – steer the boat. Note that when St George privatised, they added a sunset clause to ensure that in the first few years, no institution was allowed to own a significant shareholding. It gave the managers a few more years in the sun to better raise capital, without the interference of pesky owners. Never forget that managers and owners have divergent interests.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Pers: How to avoid lame children’s books
There’s no easy answer. You have to assiduously devour several libraries. Going by authors certainly helps. Take at least a quick search through each book for the odd or stimulating.
I’m talking about books for you to read to children. Children's books are a whole new world for adults, when it's time for that second, vicarious childhood. For the discerning adult, they can be quite exciting or beautiful, although usually too damn short. I've listed here some worthwhile books, to give you a head start.
What’s wrong with lame books? Well, why pick them when there are books that are stimulating, interesting on more than one level? I like non-lame because it’s more likely to stir the imagination, and give them wondrous expectations of this world. And since I'm doing a lot of reading, I'd like it to be a pleasant experience for everyone. I think that's quite important.
Most children’s books are lame. They do this, they do that, the end. Mundane. Generally, books that are tie-ins to tv or film can be quite lame, because they sell on the recognition factor. But even if the book is introducing new concepts, it can do it more wondrously than 80% of books out there. There are even quite basic books that aren’t lame.
I get an objective confirmation of my choices: when I check books out of one library, I get frequent beeps. Those are books marked on the "Premier's Reading List" - a State government programme to encourage reading, that identifies especially worthwhile books.
When kids choose the books themselves, they’re not going by your criteria. So expect lameness, but find some insight into their choices. My daughter’s first pick at school was one from the interminable series Clifford the Big Red Dog. Familiarity. We got one once before, and I see it’s on tv. (“Why did you get this book?” “I like the cover”). Don’t knock their choices at all, but if you’re doing the reading, you can also find books that carry.
Generally, I go for wild flights of imagination, or the unconventional ending, or odd variants on common stories.
Try these authors or books:
Libraries are essential for the sheer bulk and variety. You can put the child off with a limited range that they don’t like or are bored by.
There will remain issues of comprehension and concentration. It’s hard to age-categorise books, because of different differential speeds. You just have to test it out, and see whether your subject wanders away - literally. A very direct critical device!
One more thing: some kids like books more than others; some have less patience or concentration. Work with what you’ve got, don’t try to make the child change. Books are so diverse that it’s possible to find something for everyone.
(Myself, I’ve gone through a lot of books on construction machinery!)
Oh, and I still like much of Dr Seuss. Makes the outlandish seem everyday.
I’m talking about books for you to read to children. Children's books are a whole new world for adults, when it's time for that second, vicarious childhood. For the discerning adult, they can be quite exciting or beautiful, although usually too damn short. I've listed here some worthwhile books, to give you a head start.
What’s wrong with lame books? Well, why pick them when there are books that are stimulating, interesting on more than one level? I like non-lame because it’s more likely to stir the imagination, and give them wondrous expectations of this world. And since I'm doing a lot of reading, I'd like it to be a pleasant experience for everyone. I think that's quite important.
Most children’s books are lame. They do this, they do that, the end. Mundane. Generally, books that are tie-ins to tv or film can be quite lame, because they sell on the recognition factor. But even if the book is introducing new concepts, it can do it more wondrously than 80% of books out there. There are even quite basic books that aren’t lame.
I get an objective confirmation of my choices: when I check books out of one library, I get frequent beeps. Those are books marked on the "Premier's Reading List" - a State government programme to encourage reading, that identifies especially worthwhile books.
When kids choose the books themselves, they’re not going by your criteria. So expect lameness, but find some insight into their choices. My daughter’s first pick at school was one from the interminable series Clifford the Big Red Dog. Familiarity. We got one once before, and I see it’s on tv. (“Why did you get this book?” “I like the cover”). Don’t knock their choices at all, but if you’re doing the reading, you can also find books that carry.
Generally, I go for wild flights of imagination, or the unconventional ending, or odd variants on common stories.
Try these authors or books:
- Allan Ahlberg
- Pamela Allen [odd people, odd situations]
- Dianne Bates - Big Bad Bruce [for the ending]
- John Birmingham [often imaginative. Not the Australian humourist/social writer]
- Quentin Blake, as author [often unexpected, often charming, sometimes a little pedestrian]
- Anthony Browne [sometimes quite surreal; obsessed with monkeys]
- Keith Du Quette – A Ripping Day for a Picnic [simple story, lovely illustrations]
- Tohby Riddle [Australian author - lives close by, in Coogee I believe]
- Phyllis Root – Aunt Nancy and Old Man Trouble
- Tony Ross [often lots of fun]
- John Scieszka – The Book that Jack Wrote [escapes its boundaries]
- Maurice Sendak [of course]
Libraries are essential for the sheer bulk and variety. You can put the child off with a limited range that they don’t like or are bored by.
There will remain issues of comprehension and concentration. It’s hard to age-categorise books, because of different differential speeds. You just have to test it out, and see whether your subject wanders away - literally. A very direct critical device!
One more thing: some kids like books more than others; some have less patience or concentration. Work with what you’ve got, don’t try to make the child change. Books are so diverse that it’s possible to find something for everyone.
(Myself, I’ve gone through a lot of books on construction machinery!)
Oh, and I still like much of Dr Seuss. Makes the outlandish seem everyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)