Teaching Good Sportsmanship.

B is participating in the chess tournament at school. While he has lagged in a few areas of academic development, the kid totally rocks at spatial reasoning. He is a first grader, and this year the chess tournament was not divided K-2 and 3-5, there is one tournament K-5. J volunteers every week of the year in the chess club, teaching all of the kids how to play and helping them out, a little extra time with our boys each week.

Winning the tournament is not our goal for B. Frankly, in first grade, it would probably be unrealistic. We want him to love the game, flex his brain muscles a bit, and have some fun. Every week, before the tournament, we review our goals: Play as smart as you can. Be kind to your opponent. Be gracious regardless of the outcome - you are there for fun.

The tournament is run by the teacher assigned to the Talented and Gifted Program (TAG). It is a somewhat ironic placement because, while she is really enthusiastic, she isn't so much "gifted". As such, the TAG program is notorious for being "more" stuff, rather than "more interesting" stuff for the TAG kids. This is what we've experienced with Z in the program and one of many reasons we are on the verge of homeschooling Z next year.

The TAG teacher was unable to figure out how to run a double elimination round-robin. So, J made a diagram for her showing how the brackets work. She thought that was too complicated and couldn't understand the winner and loser brackets, so decided on a double-elimination point system instead. Two losses and your out, but the point leader still standing at the end takes all. A reasonable alternative.

At six-years-old and in first grade, B is having a great run. The first week, he played a disappointed third grader that wanted to play someone older, so she would be "challenged" - B beat her. The second week, he faced a fifth-grader. This fifth-grader was cocky about facing a first grader at the start of the game - and started trash talking. B hasn't ever really heard "trash-talk" before. Then, when B started to gain the advantage, the fifth-grader (let's call him Joe) started trying to cajole B into making foolish moves: "you don't want to do that", "watch out, probably not a good idea", "oh, yeah - move that one". Finally, B was getting flustered, so J pointed out to him that he should play his own game and not let someone else manipulate him. A few moves later, B won by check-mate. J explained the circumstance to the TAG teacher, and mentioned that she really needs to talk to Joe about table talk, because it is really not allowed in chess.

Joe went to his mom (a teacher in the school) to complain that B's dad helped B win. Joe's mom went to the TAG teacher to complain. TAG teacher says "Oh, I'll talk to him about not helping his child". TAG teacher did not point out that Joe's behavior was unsportsmanlike. Then, she relented and while B kept the points for the win, she gave Joe a bye for the game that he lost. This solution is not great, but perhaps reasonable in that J did speak to B during the game. This would have been fine if accompanied by some sincere messages about fair play and honor.

But, it doesn't end there. The bitching has continued, Joe's mom has continued her relentles complaining that Joe was unfairly beaten due to J's assistance. So, this morning, the teacher announced that she has given both Joe and B wins for the game.

Since then, B has defeated a third grader and another fifth-grader, both by check-mate. B is tied for first in the tournament - with Joe.

This leaves me with so many questions:

• Do we wonder why Americans have a reputation for bad sportsmanship and whining?
• What kind of message does this send to children about honor and sportsmanship?
• How can we still respect this teacher for not (at least) making a point about fair play?
• Will B still like chess after this?

Mouths of Babes

Z has been having a really rough go of it in school. That is, he is learning everything that he should for his age group... but, he is unhappy and is having a very difficult time succeeding on assignments and getting the work done. Much of the work is pretty much "busywork", with little value-added.

This amazing child that can smoke all of their achievement tests feels terrible about himself and his achievements because he can't finish their assigned worksheets. So, we are thinking of home(office)-schooling him next year. When asked how he felt about the idea, he said he wasn't sure about it.

"Why? What is the downside to home-schooling?"

"Well, mom, I think that it is really important that I get a quality education."

Carrot, Not Stick

While generally I am not a huge fan of incentive programs, we have started one. Why don't I like them? Well, they smack of manipulation sensu Alfie Kohn's "Punished by Rewards". We want them to learn to take initiative for personal reasons, not just because of the "carrots".

Frankly, little T wouldn't do anything for a carrot -but, chocolate is a different story. It is a new deal. If T gets up, dressed, eats breakfast, gets in the car and buckles on his own in the morning... he receives one chocolate to eat on the way to school.

We are hoping that if he develops the habit - he will learn to do these things sans chocolate. The jury is still out on whether he will ever do this without the carrot chocolate - but, for now the kid is waiting, in the car and buckled twenty minutes before I am ready.

Not so cute.

T, our littlest one, is experiencing a crisis. He used to be so cute when he needed help with his socks and shoes, and help eating and getting dressed, and on and on. But, at 4 and a half - it isn't cute anymore. So, his cries for help are escalating to shrieks (less cute), and whining (less cute still) and moaning (frankly annoying).

So, he is struggling with getting dressed in the morning. He is unpleasant to be around. And, his inefficiency has reached such heights that one morning last week, after I warned that he would go to school in whatever attire he was wearing when we got there - I carried the boy into school wearing only underpants. His teachers appreciated the notion of punishment by natural consequence and helped him get dressed there.

I'd have thought that the underwear incident would have cured him, but here he is, wandering around, whining again and wearing only underpants.

Go team.

I just had guests for the weekend. Among the familial guests were a set of parents with their four-year-old daughter and 11 year-old son. For fun, let's just call them Buffy and Jodi (if you don't get the reference, you are too young). For the parents, let's just call them Carol and Mike.

Mike is not the most attentive parent in the world. He didn't really want kids and isn't really plugged into their developmental stages. He lives more parallel to the rest of the family than in concert with them. Recently, however, he lost his job and has since felt as though he wanted to participate. So, he has started (on his own schedule) intervening with Carol's parenting. Mike is not so much pitching in as questioning Carol's strategies.

Carol is not perfect either (no one is). Carol is a driven career woman and can sometimes be a bit distracted in parenting from her job. She has trouble being consistent in rules or following through with her contingencies. That is, she might impatiently threaten to remove television all week, then later remember that she'll need them to watch tv during her teleconference later that day - so, she can't always follow through. She may even just carelessly threaten a consequence that isn't feasible. The kids can't really know when her threats for punishment are real or not - so, their responses are inconsistent.

Since Mike's been laid off, however, there's been a constant barrage of push-me pull-you parenting. Mike wants Jodie to excel in one class, and works for three hours ever day on that, but is angry that Carol can't get Jodie to satisfactorily finish all of his work in the other five subjects. Carol is angry that Jodie is so tired from one subject that he can't get through the rest when she gets home from work. Mike wants the kids available to snuggle and visit with in the evening, but doesn't want to deal with any problematic bedtime issues. He also sleeps in and has no interest in getting them to school in the morning. Carol is frustrated that the kids are too tired to move in the morning and every morning is a struggle, and that her efforts for bedtime routines are undermined (until Mike disappears into his family office leaving Carol with tired and grumpy kids). Mike cannot bear to see his four-year-old princess upset - so, he will stop at nothing to keep her from being unhappy.

This weekend, we saw the epitome of Mike undermining Carol's (inconsistent) parenting to keep this child from exploding into a tyrant worthy of Violet Beauregarde (the blueberry girl from Willy Wonka). The kids ate dinner at a separate table from the adults, so they could cut-up a little and we could have adult conversation. I had made a "Bunny Cake" for Easter dessert. Neither Mike nor Carol were completely on with this - we put out plates (appropriately cut and divvied up) for each child, set their places, gave them drinks and told them to eat their dinners. Mike hovered back and forth over Buffy to insure her safety (?). She cried that she wouldn't eat this or that. Mike tried to negotiate, "Oh, sweetie, if you eat this we'll give you lots of candy and lots of the bunny cake". Carol sporadically left our table to berate Buffy for not eating - you won't get dessert if you don't eat. We let our kids cut their own meat, get seconds, and generally be independent through the dinner (if a bit giggly). Our youngest lost it and was briefly incarcerated on the stairs (time-out) before he got to rejoin the bunch.

Finally, our children were all finished, as were the grown-ups. Jodie had eaten his dinner. But, poor Buffy was suffering with the dreaded green beans (yeck!!). Mike continued to cajole and Carol threaten. Finally, Carol stated "you need to eat these three green beans, if you do that - you can have cake". While I wasn't there, a credible witness has told me that Mike popped the three green beans into his own mouth and told Carol that Buffy ate it. So, finally, after 45 minutes of threats from Carol, cajoling from Mike, and shrieking from Buffy - she got her cake. Mike undermined all of Carol's parenting efforts, and everyone suffers the consequence of a child being rewarded for behaving like a tyrant.

If there has to be one basic rule for parenting - present a united front. Don't let the kids tear you apart. In the end, what you have is each other, and the kids will figure life out easier if there are fewer sets of rules to navigate.

Going naked.

Not me, of course.

T is determined to get all of the attention that his pudgy little cheeks have always earned him, even if he is growing up.

Lately, this has manifested itself in a complete inability to cooperate with our morning program. All the kid has to do in the morning is get dressed. His clothes are laid out with care. Once dressed and shod, he can have breakfast (a first of two as the daycare also provides breakfast).

Of late, though, we have been given an hour-long concert of moaning and whining with lyrics like "I can't get up" and "I can't SEE my clothes".

So, earlier this week, I threw him in the care dressed as far as he had progressed (pants only) and toted him into school carrying his shoes, shirt, and socks. He was a bit mortified at being in the school mostly naked. I assumed that this natural consequence would solve the problem.

I was surprised then, that this morning he was totally butt naked as I started to get him in the car. He dressed himself in about a minute on the way out the door.

Son - there are a lot of ways to get attention... can we just get dressed?

Whose fault is it when someone dies?

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I encountered one of the most toxic people I've been around in quite awhile. She wasn't even speaking to me and I almost felt I should shower when I got home. She was speaking to the kind (if sometimes incompetent) people behind the deli counter.

While I waited (and none of the other help came around to assist me) a woman repeatedly had them get different packets of meat from the deli case, the storage refrigerator, and finally from the front of the deli case so that she could examine the ingredients. This was unusual; not in itself rude, although she might have been sheepish about taking so much time. Instead, she became increasingly angry.

She complained to one of the staff that all of the products had some ingredient in them (I was trying not to listen).

The girl said "Oh, I think they all have that".

The woman, more loudly, "Well, they didn't used to, it is terrible for you."

The girl, trying to sound patient (sounding a bit annoyed), "Oh, I think they always have had it, but I'm no doctor, I don't know if it's bad".

"Well, I AM A DOCTOR, AND IT CAUSES CANCER".

The girl starts to lose her patience "Well, I wish I'd known that for all the family I've lost to cancer, maybe I should send them to you".

Louder still, "YOU BLOODY WELL SHOULD, THIS STUFF KILLS. MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD CANCER IF THEY HADN'T EATEN THIS CRAP".

Girl, trying to keep it together "Ok, is there anything I can get for you?"

"NONE OF THIS POISON, I'LL TAKE FOUR OUNCES OF THAT (pointing)".

As the girl walked away to let the boy behind the counter fill the order, the women muttered "And, you should tell her that if she ate less of this crap she wouldn't be obese and maybe she wouldn't die of diabetes or heart disease". Then, she followed up this ugly remark by berating the poor hapless guy trying to help her.

This is so wrong, and on so many levels.

What kind of physician would be so ugly and insulting to anyone and pretend that they are a healer? I can think of no other exchange in the last ten years that was so outwardly hateful.

How can a healer be so ruthless in attacking someone - did she fail Empathy 101?

While certainly it is true that some diseases are potentiated by bad behavior - on no account is it appropriate to suggest that someone "had it coming" for their personal flaws.

Ever since my mother was diagnosed, and certainly since she died - many folks have asked me about the cancer. Almost unfailingly, when someone learns that my mother died of lung cancer - I am asked whether or not she smoked. Like, it would be ok or she had it coming if she were a smoker and somehow that makes her loss less significant? As though, of course she never got to meet some of her grandchildren because she was to blame for the cancer.

My mother was not a smoker and her cancer was not the same sort of lung cancer that smokers get. But, regardless of her behavior or how deserving she was of her cancer - I lost my mother. My mother, who was always conscientous about never asking "Oh, God, why me?" while she died has a bunch of post-game quarterbacks that want to see if the cancer was her fault.

I realize why people do it... if she had smoked, they can coyly feel as though it won't happen to them because they don't. Imagine, though, how I would feel if I had to relive, all the time, that my mother's loss might have been avoided if she hadn't been foolish.

Heck, it might have been avoided if a specific doctor had read her x-ray properly, or looked for cancer when she had a chronic cough, or noticed the ongoing hoarseness with no etiology. But, second-guessing will never bring mom back.

Obesity, smoking, lack of exercise are all issues that we, as a society, need to address. The path we need to take, however, is not to blame the people we've lost - but, to try to effect positive (notice I said positive, you ugly doctor woman - yes, you) change in the people we still have.