Conference moira::parenting

All of Brazleton's points that you referred to point to worst-case methods or
situations:

>In order to please adults around them,

Why does this have to be the motivation for kids to read and write? What about
kids that want to read and write early?

>three-year-olds could read and write successfully. They didn't seem to know
>what they were reading, but they could do it.

This looks like more of a problem with the reading/writing methods that were
used rather than the idea of early learning. What if kids did know what they
were reading and writing?

>When they reached first grade, they were ahead of other children, and they
>received the adult approval they needed. But other children didn't
>particularly like them

And this problem is caused by early learning? It sounds like the problem is with
the other children.

>and many of these "precocious" children hadn't learned the skills they needed
>to get along with peers.

1) The two are not mutually exclusive. 2) children can be missing the skills to
get along with peers whether or not they are "precocious" 3) we place too much
emphasis on age-peer socialization; children should be able to interact with
people of all ages.

>They were adult oriented.

What's wrong with this?

>In second and third grades, they began to slip. The rote learning
>processes they'd used to learn earlier didn't generalize to the more
>complex learning they needed in later grades.

1) Sounds like a problem in the teaching method, 2) could als be the teacher not
recognizing the problem and correcting it, 3) the more complex learning could
have been instilled after they learned how to read

>When they began to slip from the top of the class, they lost the adult
>approval for which they'd been performing.

1) This is a problem of the adult; not the concept

>These unfortunate children then hit bottom. They were not the stars any
>longer;

1) Not a bad lesson to learn, 2) young children should be stars in their
parents' eyes, 3) why didn't the parents continue providing the appropriate
acceleration for their children?

>other children had deserted them; adults were disappointed, leaving them sad
>and deserted.

These are all people problems; not problems with the concept of early childhood
education!

>Despite this and later evidence that such precocious early training is costly

The evidence has been cooked. I'd like to see a performance study of children
that read before elementary school that are provided individualized, self-paced
instruction. I've read of the arguments that children that read early even out
after three to four years. The problem with these arguments is that the children
were educated in school systems where there are limits on the amount of
acceleration allowed.

>Books and programs promising ways to "teach your baby to read" continue to
>proliferate.

I've never seen a "teach your baby to read" program, but there was a rather
heated debate on this issue in misc.kids on Glenn Doman's program. We've never
used these nor have we seen them. The reviews that I've seen seem to indicate
that the better ones cost less than the more expensive ones.

>A child learns best who learns for 'herself', not others.

This is not incompatible with early childhood learning.

>Play is her way of learning.

There are many, many other ways that children learn. Subscribe to the home-ed
mailing list for a few months and you'll see many different ways of learning and
many different ways of teaching as well as examples of different learning
styles.

michael

    While I tend to agree with .0 on this, I'm curious: how does
    one subscribe to the home-ed mailing list you mention in .1?
    
    Thanks,
    Tara

    re: .2
    
    Send mail to [email protected] or 3049::"[email protected]"
    for those not familiar with sending mail to the internet with the
    following in the message body (not in the subject line):
    
    	subscribe home-ed <your email address>
    
    where your email address is the address as seen from the internet. My
    address would be [email protected]. It's changing this weekend to
    [email protected], but that's just a sidebar.
    
    michael

    
    While I agree with parts of .0 and some portion of .1, I also
    think the most important thing to teach a little one is the
    process of learning, ie. how to learn new things and how to
    "remember" the things we have learnt.
    
    IMO, the ability to read opens up the magic door to the realm
    of knowledge, since there are a whole lot more books available 
    to choose from than any other media of information exchange, 
    like TV. Being able to read makes the world sensible - I still
    remember the day when my daughter could read the billboards
    and road signs - it was like someone flip on a light switch 
    in her head. For a little one, writing isn't as important at the
    beginning, I think. Thus, I do believe there is a benefit in
    teaching reading as soon as the child is ready and shows interest.
    
    We, as adults, all know that not everyone can remember everything 
    we've learnt. But, it makes a big difference if we know where to find
    the information again when we need it. Instead of memermizing the
    10 books which is not very efficient, we can memerizing what the 
    10 books are about and where the 10 books can be found. What it
    boils down to is knowing where to get the info is as good as knowing
    the info by heart, in most situations. This is something that is
    not taught readily. 
    
    I also believe for little kids, the breadth of knowledge is more
    important than depth. Imagine a little child walking down a hotel
    corridor, lots of doors on each side. Each door represents a different
    sort of knowledge, eg. foreign country, music, sports, our universe,
    living things, our body, etc. I think it is more beneficial to open up 
    all the doors and let the kid check them all out, even just peeking in
    for a second, than to spend a lot of time inside just one room. I
    think we need to teach children the vastness of this world and how
    we fit in. Then it is up to the child to pick his/her favorite rooms
    to explore.
    
    I agree that parents who want to "accelerate" their children's learning
    have to keep working on it for the rest of their lives, pretty much.
    School can only teach the basics and the rest depends on the parents. 
    
    I also agree that children should learn to relate to other children.
    No amount of adult attention can substitute peer interactions, IMO.
    For a child who is advanced, it is important for him/her to know that
    other children can be fun to play with and can be good friends too.
    Otherwise, the child could grow up feeling out of place in society.
    I had similar problems as a child and boy, did I hate it. It took me
    a few painful pre-teen years to synch up with other children. I
    guess my point is there are different aspects of growth and being
    advanced in academics does not mean the child is emotionally/spiritually
    mature at the same rate.
    
    
    Eva
    

Many years ago, I posted the text of a pamphlet called _Confessions of a
Waldorf-School Parent_, by Meg Gorman of the Washington Waldorf School.
The entire text is in MOIRA::PARENTING_V3, topic 35; but I thought it
might be worth quoting this lengthy extract, which talks in some detail
about the Waldorf attitude to teaching reading.

	-Neil

========================================================================

        In the meantime, while I was on my high horse of self-improvement,
        my son had entered nursery school and my daughter had begun first
        grade.  Here I ran smack into a wall.  It was the biggest hurdle I
        had yet faced in Waldorf education:  the question of late reading. 

        Now, I am an English teacher and, as such, I have a large stake in
        reading.  Although, by my generation's standards, I read late at
        age eight, I find reading a joy, and it brings me some of my best
        moments. Because I find this such a satisfying experience, I am
        enthusiastic about sharing it with others, the sooner the better.
        I used to think, if I had read at age three, I could have had so
        much more fun and learned so much more.  Early reading must be
        good.  Just think of what a head start I would have had on life.
        Besides, there is such a wealth of literature out there for
        children.  Why not get into it as soon as possible?  Then there
        were those neighborhood mothers who bragged about their children's
        genius because their kids could read early.  Why not my kids too? 

        Waldorf pedagogy, on the other hand, feels that reading is
        generally unhealthy for children under seven.  In fact, it says,
        children should not begin to read until their baby teeth start to
        fall out.  This seemed plain silly to me.  I felt certain that the
        school would see my point of view when I discussed it with some of
        the teachers. 

        At first, I tried to convince the school that their approach to
        reading was archaic.  Surely they could be wrong about something,
        and this must be it.  When I first met my daughter's class
        teacher, he encouraged his class parents to come to him and
        discuss any concerns we might have about the education our
        children would be getting.  I often wonder if he ever regrets that
        remark where I am concerned.  At first, I was a bit shy; but I
        swiftly overcame my reticence as my sense of indignation rose on
        the issue of reading.  I took our class teacher at this word, and
        I peppered him with questions about reading.  He remained firm. 

        Early reading, he told me, got in the way of healthy physiological
        development.  He saw his task in the early grades as building up
        the child's physical strength, powers of observation, life of
        imagination and sense of security.  Then, he told me, the academic
        education which was to follow would find rich soil in which to
        grow, with the end result that the young person could make
        educated decisions and think with few prejudices as an adult.  He
        explained that the grade-school child is still incarnating, that
        is, coming down from another world.  Waldorf education tries to
        remove as many obstacles as possible for the child so that she can
        grow into the person she needs to be.  This means, loosely
        translated, not the self I had in mind for my child, but some
        mysterious unknown self which my child carried within her.  I
        squirmed.  I had heard this sort of thing before from the nursery
        school teacher and from various lectures.  This kind of
        explanation made me, an orthodox Christian, very nervous.
        Besides, it just didn't seem rational.  I tried to ignore these
        "spiritual" aspects of Waldorf education as the kooky stuff that
        some of the teachers believed.  It was difficult because these
        sorts of explanations came up over and over again.  It always
        seemed that, just as I was beginning to get a handle on Waldorf
        education, something impossible appeared.  The question of the
        incarnating soul was eerie for me.  I just didn't get its
        connection to late reading.  So, I swept my daughter's teacher's
        remarks under my I'm-not-ready-for-this carpet which was already
        bulging with Waldorf-related humps and bumps. 

        First, I had to get the issue of reading squared away.  In
        retrospect, now that my daughter reads well, the process which
        follows seems ridiculous.  At the time, it was urgent, and I spent
        many hours reading, talking, and thinking about it. 

        I understood that part of the reason reading was delayed at
        Waldorf schools had to do with the development of memory.  If one
        can read and write something, one need not remember the
        information.  The ancient story-tellers of every culture disappear
        as a civilization becomes more literate.  Was this progress?  I
        didn't know.  The children at Waldorf schools memorize a great
        deal.  Does this improve their memories?  My children's music
        teachers have commented on how rapidly our children memorize
        music.  Is this Waldorf at work?  I don't know for sure, but I do
        know that my children's memories are far better than my memory was
        at their ages. 

        And what about knitting, crocheting and other handwork projects of
        these early years?  These activities certainly improve hand-eye
        coordination which, in turn, helps reading, but couldn't the
        students read a little in between? There seemed to be so much
        artistic work in these early years that there was no time for
        reading.  "Self-discipline and will power are best learned through
        artistic work," came the answer from my daughter's class teacher.
        I know now that this is true.  Both of my older children seem to
        be quite responsible and self-disciplined.  I have had to struggle
        mightily for self-discipline as an adult, so I now see this as one
        of the major gifts of Waldorf education. 

        Still, back then, I wasn't convinced.  I was plagued with
        questions about reading and Waldorf education in general.  I still
        swept the difficult questions on things spiritual under my carpet
        of procrastination, but I had plenty of other things which kept me
        awake at night.  I had to admit that I admired the teachers whom I
        knew at the school.  They actually seemed worthy of emulation.
        Yet, could one teacher give a child what he or she needed over
        eight years?  [In a Waldorf school, a class stays with the same
        "class teacher" from first through eighth grade, although there
        are also special lesson teachers, especially in the later years,
        where they teach subjects such as chemistry and physics. - NF]
        And what about reading, writing, and arithmetic?  Should I keep my
        children at the Waldorf school for its warm, humanistic approach
        and have them tutored in academics on the side?  Should I continue
        to press my daughter's teacher in the hopes that he would come
        around on the issue of reading?  Was it already too late?  At age
        four, my daughter had started to read and had not been encouraged.
        Now, at age six, she had lost interest.  I went out and looked at
        other schools--something which has become an annual ritual for
        me.  I recommend it.  It always makes me realize how special our
        school really is. 

        Each time I came back to Waldorf because I sensed a depth and
        moral quality at our school that I seldom found elsewhere.  Each
        year I made a new act of faith and decided to go one more round
        with Waldorf education. 

        I also decided to do my best to cooperate with the requests of
        Waldorf education.  I left the television off, I did not have my
        children tutored (nor did I tutor them myself), and I continued to
        struggle for more rhythm in my life.  In the dark of the night, I
        prayed that I had made the right decision. 

        By day, in my own haphazard way, I continued to research the
        question of late reading.  I read around the subject and found, to
        my surprise, that many educators supported the concept of late
        reading, among them Bruno Bettelheim, David Elkind, Joseph C.
        Pearce and Jean Piaget.  Still, I wasn't sure.  I comforted myself
        by making lists of successful people who read late.  Literary
        people were well represented.  My list included Margaret Mead,
        Einstein, Churchill, Balzac, Lord Mountbatten, Mark Twain, George
        Washington Carver, and the great Irish writer William Butler
        Yeats, who was finally beaten into learning to read after the age
        of nine. 

        Finally, at the end of third grade, my daughter began to read
        well.  What she read amazed me.  Her standards were high and still
        are.  She plowed through the major children's classics until, at
        the end of sixth grade, she amazed me by beginning her summer
        reading with the two fat volumes of the _Complete_Sherlock_
        _Holmes_.  All for fun!  The entire business of late reading was
        no longer an issue for me at all.  In fact, I now find it quite
        inconsequential. 

        Recently, I ran across a quotation from another late reader, the
        wonderful English writer Sylvia Townsend Warner.  It comes from
        her recently published collected essays, _Scenes_of_Childhood_.
        She writes about her father: 

            He doubted--and very naturally, I'm sure, being a school
            master--the benefit of learning to read.  From the moment a
            child discovers that information can be got out of books, he
            averred, it desists from exercising its faculties of
            observation, memory, and thinking itself. So long after my
            contemporaries had become literate, I was left to be
            observant, retentive, and rational. 

        Thank God, I say.  Would that we all had these qualities to the
        degree that Ms. Warner has them.  Her father's points are well
        taken and echo more reasons why late reading is useful. 

    re: .5
    
    This was posted on misc.kids as an argument for late reading and was
    debated on end for months to no conclusion. The problem is that there
    is insufficient research on the subject of early reading and continued
    acceleration; especially as our school systems don't handle
    acceleration well. This is a common theme in the misc.education
    newsgroup and the gifted mailing list.
    
    
    michael

    I have two gifted children, (aren't all of our kids this way?) who
    learned totally differently but came up to the same levels, quickly.  
    
    Lolita was writing her name by the age of 2, reading by four, and was
    in all the enrichment/honors courses from day one when she started
    school.  She loved reading to herself for the joy of reading.  However,
    her physical gross muscular stuff took years to catch up.  Until she
    was in the 7th grade she was pretty uncoordinated.  She was almost 9
    before she was comfortable on a two wheeler.  She lettered in Track and
    Cross country once she hit highschool, the clumsyness faded away.
    
    Carrie, on the other hand had no interest in reading or writing or
    letters until she was almost 6.  This sort of drove me nuts as I am a
    biblioholic, and you will seldom find me without a book, even when I am
    backpacking. However she was comfortable on a two-wheeler, roller
    skates, climbing, balancing, you name it.  She liked to be read to and
    had memorized some of her books, but handing her a pencil or asking her
    to read sections of a book was like encountering a brick wall at 90
    mph.  About the time she hit kindergarten, just before her 6th b-day, she 
    asked me to teach her the alphabet and how to write letters and grocery
    lists.  She picked up reading, writing and arithmetic rapidly once she
    was in the developmental place for it.
    
    Who knows with Atlehi?  She likes to play with pencils and pens and
    holds them "correctly", (has from day one).  We will let her find her
    own speed, and work from there.  
    
    The major problem with any learning method is that they all try to
    categorize children into nice, little boxes, and kids aren't nice,
    neat, easy to categorize things.  I think if you respond to your child's
    wants and needs, rather than asking your child to respond to yours, you
    will find what he or she is interested in/developmentally ready for and
    you can go from there.  Letting them set the agenda for discovering the
    magic in books is the only way to have that apark really take off IMHO.
    
    meg

>    The major problem with any learning method is that they all try to
>    categorize children into nice, little boxes, and kids aren't nice,
>    neat, easy to categorize things.

I assume that you're referring to the much-advertised reading programs out
there, as there are many teaching methods that deal with teaching to multiple
learning styles in groups of children. The nice thing is that parents can
readily determine what works and what doesn't. The problem is parents can buy
materials and make the child use them so that the money doesn't go to waste.

>    I think if you respond to your child's
>    wants and needs, rather than asking your child to respond to yours, you
>    will find what he or she is interested in/developmentally ready for and
>    you can go from there.

This sounds like the unschooling philosophy (example is the Sudbury Valley
School). My understanding of unschooling is the education is totally
unstructured and that the learning is child-led. This philosophy is discussed in
the 'Taking Children Seroiusly' mailing list run by Sarah Lawrence (I don't have
the address, but it pops up in FAQs now and then). The parents provide a rich
environment and resources when requested. I believe that some people teach the
basics (reading, writing and math) before embarking on unschooling.

I think it takes a lot of courage on the part of parents to do this, as you're
under pressure to produce good results on standardized tests as well as letting
the child/teen have complete freedom over education.

>   Letting them set the agenda for discovering the
>   magic in books is the only way to have that apark really take off IMHO.

Yes, but you can really help with a rich environment. There was an article about
the Boston schools where a teacher discussed the varied background of his
students. He said there are kids that have never been read to and they are mixed
in with kids that he calls thousand-book kids as they have had that many books
read to them. The latter group has a great advantage which may never be made up.

michael

An article that has a little of everything: homeschooling, early academics,
kids dealing with adults, unschooling, Montesorri, and Digital.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning Section, Boston Sunday Globe, June 18, 1995, Page A89

First BU Academy grad to enter MIT - at 15

In 1989, Michael Hanau left her position as a software engineer with Digital
Equipment Corp. to pursue another full-time job: managing her son's education.

Hanau deserves a raise.

Her son, Christopher Douglas, who turned 15 in February and was solving
algebraic problems in his head when he was 6, will be a freshman at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in fall.

"But I have no idea what I want to be," Douglas acknowledged last week, a few
days before graduating from Boston University Academy, a private,
advanced-learning high school that teaches students on a college level.

Douglas was the first - and the only - graduate of the school which was founded
18 months ago. He had skipped his sophomore and senior years at the academy with
the faculty's full support and decided to challenge his mind further by becoming
a fill-time college student.

He applied to the California Institute of Technology, Harvard, Boston University
and Amherst College.

"CalTech said they would love to have me but not at my age, and Harvard put me
on the waiting list," said Douglas, fidgeting as befits his age but speaking as
someone much older. "MIT turned out to be better for me anyway."

If nothing else, MIT will be convenient. Douglas will continue to live with his
parents in Southborough and commute to Cambridge with his father, Richard
Douglas, who has a doctorate in biochemistry and is vice president of corporate
development at Genzyme Corp., a biotechnology company.

Douglas was a child prodigy, mastering basic math skills as a toddler. Within a
couple years, his parents, always seeking ways to feed his hungry mind, played
"mystery math" - their term for algebra - while sipping cocoa with him by the
fire or at the dinner table.

In 1985, he entered the Apple Valley Montesorri School in Framingham, where the
age-mixed classrooms and self-paced curriculum were ideal, his mother said.

But the school only offered education up to the second grade. Because of the gap
between his advanced math and normal reading skills, there were no traditional
schools his parents felt could handle his education.

So they enrolled him in the alternative and sometimes controversial Sudbury
Valley School, which allows students to study anything they want or nothing at
all. There, Douglas spent most of his time with older children and immersed
himself in role-playing adventure games.

After two years, he switched to a public middle school in Southborough, his
first taste of formal education. In the seventh grade, he taught himself
geometry and even tutored some of his classmates in algebra.

"It was there that we began to realize that he didn't fit," said Hanau. "He
learned so quickly, and what he was interested in studying, particularly in math
and science, the school just didn't offer."

Douglas has never had an IQ test because his parents didn't think it oculd
reflect his intelligence accurately and they didn't want the boy's ability to be
tied to a number. He did score 750 out of a possible 800 on the math portion of
the Scholastic Assessment Test, however, one month before his 12th birthday.

His parents began teaching him at home. His father tutored him in science and
social studies, while his mother guided him in math, writing and music. Douglas,
an only child, taught himself computer programming. He plays the piano and
enjoys nature photography and figure skating.

"He was always precocious, yes," saud Hanau. "Did we know it? No. We were naive.
... We just enjoyed Chris and really didn't have a comparison with other
children. He spent a lot time wirh adults."

After one year of home schooling, during which time his parents wore themselves
out trying to keep his mind stimulated, Douglas entered the newly opened BU
Academy.

"I suggested one day that this university ought to consider creating a secondary
school in which youngsters could take advantage of university facilities," said
Peter Schweich, former BU professor and now academy headmaster. BU president
John Silber "said go ahead and do it," said Schweich. "And we did."

The academy costs about $14,000 a year and has about 60 students.

In his commencement address, Douglas lamented the slide in good schooling while
so many students struggle to learn.

"The solution is not for schools to reduce the quality of their education even
further," he said. "The standards must not be depressed but must actually be
raised in order to solve the problem. I have found that most people rise up to
meet the expectations set for them."

    
    re. .9
    
    I am interested to see how the parents deal with the
    social, emotional and spiritual needs of the child. 
    This article dealt with academics only. IMO, it is not 
    difficult to challenge a child academically, especially
    if the parents themselves are academically inclined, the 
    hard part is to teach the child about humanity which is 
    pretty much a hands-on process. I am not talking about
    learning to socialize/party, I am talking about under-
    standing the complex web of life, how each of us fit
    in the scheme of things, and how to make decisions
    (academic or political) to truly benefit the human race
    (sometimes the most advanced technology is the worst
     enemy of humanity). IMO, a genius with a heart is
    a gift from the heavens, a genius without a soul is a
    time bomb from hell.
    
    
    Eva
              

    re: .10

>I am interested to see how the parents deal with the
>social, emotional and spiritual needs of the child.

This is an issue regardless of academic talent. The U.S. could do a much
better job in these areas regardless of academic talent.

>This article dealt with academics only. IMO, it is not
>difficult to challenge a child academically

I disagree. Have a look at the ERIC digests (US Dept of Ed) on gifted
(don't like the term but that's what's used) children where it talks about
the many problems parents have getting services for their children. They
have an article where they suggest homeschooling to properly serve g&t
children.

The article states that this couple burned out after a year of trying to do
this. Consider the amount of work they had to do looking at potential
school systems (sitting in classrooms for a few hours, talking to the
administration, doing research on the school, etc), and the work find
curricular materials when they were homeschooling.

Teachers and administrators discuss the problems of challenging g&t
students on the tag-l mailing list and the general problem is lack of
resources. g&t programs are frequently cut first when there are budget
problems.

>the hard part is to teach the child about humanity which is
>pretty much a hands-on process.

This is not really a g&t issues as it applies to everyone.

>IMO, a genius with a heart is a gift from the heavens, a genius without a
>soul is a time bomb from hell.

This is a rather strange statement to make. You can have a genius who isn't
given a chance to excel due to limited educational opportunities that
doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things. And you can have a
genious 'without a soul' that does great things according to the best
interests of his people (based on understanding of logical consequences).

I believe that there are many talented children that drop out of school as
they don't fit into the culture, and become societal problems. I read this
in a g&t articl somewhere, but don't recall the title.

michael

    Michael,
    
    I can guarantee that gt children do drop out if they are not being
    appropriately challenged, and this is a good reason to fight for your
    kids if they are appearing to be bored in class or being over
    challenged also.  
    
    As far as a souless genius, I agree with Eva.  Educating kids about
    their places in life and the universe is possibly the most important
    thing we can do for our children IMO.  
    
    meg

re: .12

>   I can guarantee that gt children do drop out if they are not being
>   appropriately challenged, and this is a good reason to fight for your
>   kids if they are appearing to be bored in class or being over
>   challenged also.

We've decided to homeschool so this is not a problem.

>    As far as a souless genius, I agree with Eva.  Educating kids about
>    their places in life and the universe is possibly the most important
>    thing we can do for our children IMO.

In the past, this was the duty of the parents, and I believe that parents
did this without necessarily thinking about doing it. Now it is apparently
the job of the schools. But soullessness and genius are orthogonal. You can
be soulless and: challenged, gifted, talented, average, etc.

michael (last post to a Digital notesfile as we are leaving the Digital
net)

    
    I guess I need to clarify about genius without a soul - someone who
    is a genius can do a whole lot more damage to society and the human 
    races than someone average. The uni-bomber is a good modern example, IMO.
    From what I understand, this person is a genius in his/her own right.
    
    I never said that the schools are solely responsible for teaching
    humanity, but rather the schools are the places of gathering where 
    children can learn about humanity from each other. Parents can guide 
    children but children have to make their own mistakes and learn the 
    lessons for themselves, IMO. Getting along with other genius is
    probably easy for a genius, but understanding and getting along with 
    the rest of the general population, so as to be able to make
    contributions to society and humanity is not trivial, IMO. That is 
    the part of development that I didn't think the article cared to mention.
    
    
    Eva                               

    I'd like to return to the base note with a few observations of my own:
    
    1)  Let the child lead the way.  My son has been reading since age 3.5.
        No, I did not read to him every day!  But if he picked up a book
        and said, "Weed, Mommy," I did so, and gladly.  My daughter, who
        just turned 4, is very interested in books, knows the alphabet,
        etc., but doesn't read like her brother did at that age.  Both
        kids know that I'll read to them any time (almost!) and I always
        talk to them about things.  They go to the supermarket with me
        and do little things around the house with me.  I believe this
        time together -- OK, it ain't "quality" time, but it's time --
        is very important to developing all their skills.
    
    2)  Accept your kids for who/what they are.  Both my kids are bright,
        caring, friendly children.  One is neater than the other; one has
        a wonderful imagination.  Both are good athletes and eager to try
        new experiences.  One has always been a 'mini-adult'; the other
        is a "real kid."  While I wish the sloppier one would follow the
        neat one's good example, I wouldn't change either of them for
       anything.  Again, being accepted by the key adults in their life is
        essential to future success for children.
    
    3)  Genius, schmenius.  Teach them to take joy in simply learning, to
        have one or two things that they do for the sheer love of doing
        them.  In my case it was reading.  In my sister's case, it was
        playing the piano.  In another child's case, it may be sports,
        art, woodworking.  Encourage them to learn something they love and
        to love the learning of it.