Strollerderby : class size

Lesbian Lawmaker Denied Chance to Work for Kids

JeanneSager — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:32:00 GMT

A Missouri lawmaker has been told she was kept off of a House committee on children and families because other members found her "offensive."

What's offensive? That she's a lesbian?

Democratic Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford was nominated by her party last month to serve on the Special Standing Committee on Children and Families in the Missouri House. But the Republican house speaker, Ron Richard, ignored the party's request and chose another Democrat.

But Rep. Mike Corcoran, who got the nod, says he expressed an interest in the seat only after being told Oxford was out of the running. He thought she made a good pick. Which leads Oxford back to her big question.

Is the head of the Republicans in the Missouri house saying a lesbian can't help on a committee that serves children and families? Ironic, considering one of only two openly gay lawmakers in the house, Oxford HAS served on committees relating to kids and families since she was elected in 2004. Before that, she served as executive director of ROWEL, a St. Louis organization that advocates for the poor with a focus on changes to the welfare system. One of its biggest claims to fame in Missouri? ROWEL advocated for increases in cash grants for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

The House minority leader - who put forth Oxford's name for the appointment - is also confused; Richard accepted other party suggestions - and he hasn't given her a clear answer either.

It all sounds fishy to me, especially when you look at the list of bills sponsored by Oxford in her time in the House - everything from establishing lower class sizes in St. Louis city and county schools to expanding the amount of kosher foods available under the state's Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program.

Sounds like this is a lady who knows kids and families. Funny thing a lot of homophobic house speakers haven't realized - lesbians are parts of families too. And once upon a time, they were kids. Which makes them just as qualified for a post on a committee that deals with kids and families as anyone else - especially when they have a long history of advocating for . . . kids and families.

Image: Jeanette Mott Oxford's Blogspot

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

Childcare Relationships and Bickering Parents Affect Kids' Stress Hormones

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:30:00 GMT

It seems self-evident that kids with poor childcare relationships or parents who frequently fight are more stressed than other kids. But now two new studies have established this common sense theory from a biological standpoint, by monitoring the levels of cortisol (the human stress hormone) in preschoolers and 6-year-olds. As parents across the country struggle to afford high quality childcare and to maintain a stable home environment, these studies are unfortunately quite applicable to these trying economic times.

In most people, cortisol levels decrease throughout the day. But for many children in full-time daycare, the stress hormone increases as the day progresses. Researchers found that class size clearly affected children’s moods, with preschoolers in classes of 10 or fewer children producing less cortisol than those in classrooms with closer to 20 other kids.

Children with poor relationships with their daycare providers became more stressed after one-on-one interactions with the teacher, while clingier kids had higher overall cortisol increases throughout the day.

Similarly, a study of 6-year-olds with bickering parents found that those who were very involved in and distressed about the fights produced more cortisol than other 6-year-olds. Since high levels of cortisol have been linked to health and psychological problems, this finding offers a biological understanding of why kids who get very upset by their parents’ arguments are more likely to have psychological problems later. (Whether higher levels of cortisol are a cause or an effect of psychological disorders is not clear.)

The study’s authors hope that understanding the biological basis of stress in young children will change the way kids in these common problematic situations are treated. For instance, monitoring kids’ levels of cortisol could help indicate whether a given intervention is working to relieve stress or not.

Day Care Enrollments Plummet as Families Struggle to Pay the Bills

Is Cutting Your Sitter's Pay the Best Way to Save Money?

Photo: pregnancy-depression-help.com

Smaller Classes = Healthier Kids

Karen Murphy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:15:00 GMT

When I grew up, we routinely were in classes of about 30. I mean, I guess so; what kid counts the other kid in their class? I never did. But having a teacher for a mom, I'm pretty sure that my classes were typically around 30. So when my own kids went to private school and had classes of sometimes as few as 8 kids, topping out at 23, I thought that certainly was different from my own experience. But smaller classes are better, right? Easier for the teacher in terms of how much attention they can lavish on each child? I always thought so. And now there's proof. Sort of.

Beginning in 1985, 12,000 Tennessee kids were studied as part of Project STAR in Virginia. The kids were randomly assigned classes of different sizes from kindergarten through third grade. Some kids were in classes of 13-17 students and others were in classes of 23-25 kids. Teachers were also randomly assigned, and the kids were tracked in the four years of kindergarten through third grade in an effort to determine the effect of class size on educational attainment.

Then they went a whole next step: since the differences in educational attainment were considerabe, researchers decided to use that information to create a "computer model of a hypothetical group of 5-year-olds exposed for four years to small classes (of 13 to 17) and then followed until the age of 65. The researchers calculated projected earnings, welfare payments, and crime costs based on what we know about the relationship between these outcomes and educational attainment. They also drew on statistics relating degree of education to quality-of-life scores and age-specific mortality. And they accounted for the cost of maintaining smaller class sizes."

What they found, at least through the model, was that the kids exposed to smaller classes lived longer. And there was a net savings to the state of about $200,000 for each kid, meaning that the kids were healthier and made more money and therefore could pay more taxes.

There's not a lot pf hypothesizing here as to exactly what it was about the smaller classes that made kids healthier in the long term. Could those benefits be derived, for instance, another way? I'm curious about this.

And then there's the problem with my own kids' experience in smaller classes. Although they're in public school right now, the idea in the Waldorf schools they attended was that smaller classes were NOT better; in fact, a class size of somewhere in the 20's was preferred and my son's wee class of 6-8 (it fluctuated) was considered too small and difficult to teach.

So who's right? I'll be interested in seeing more about this, if we ever do, as time goes on.

Strollerderby : class size

Lesbian Lawmaker Denied Chance to Work for Kids

Your Kids' Good Manners Could be a Crimebuster

News Anchor Interviews Senator Webb While Holding Baby

Sarah Palin Speaks To Esquire About Kids And Things

Childcare Relationships and Bickering Parents Affect Kids' Stress Hormones

Smaller Classes = Healthier Kids