Schools chief: Parents have raised worst generation yet

SNIP....."Another serious concern was the tendency to sit children in front of the television, rather than talking and playing with them. This meant that many were unable to speak properly when they started school."

SNIP...."Monica Galt, the head teacher of King's Road primary school in Manchester, said that many children started school with minimal social skills. "It is not just verbal skills, they seem to have no notion of danger or idea how to sit still," she said. "Many can't fasten buttons or use a knife and fork.

"We start them with spoons and wean them on to other cutlery. Some children have never sat at a table because their parents let them eat their tea sitting on the floor in front of the televison."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/31/nedu31.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/31/ixnewstop.html

Are things any better elsewhere?

I can tell you that they are a great generation. They are social, thoughtful, inventive, opinionated, embracing of life. I can honestly say that I have met very few that I would not enjoy spending time with.

We are leaving them quite a mess but we should not fear for their abilities to handle what life sends their way.

this is a tiny minority that are being 'non-raised.'

kids seem to be very involved. We do not have as much consumerism and visual pollution here but for a time I worked in MA and NH and I found a similar picture there

But you sound pretty close.
I can honestly say that there are very few 12 to 18 year olds that I come across in my day-to-day life, that I could imagine enjoying time spending time with.
Most seem very rude and uninformed, and as completely self-centered as you would expect in our society.
Try taking your survey among inner-city kids in L.A., Chicago, or NY, N.Y. and see how 'embracing of life' most of them are.

my days with them)

Some children have never sat at a table because their parents let them eat their tea sitting on the floor in front of the televison."

<snip>

What the hell does 'eat their tea' mean????? I always thought tea was a liquid??? Is this some sort of 'England' thingy?

can involve sandwiches, biscuits, and all manner of other food.

It is a meal...not just a liquid.

High Tea is often a misnomer. Most people refer to afternoon tea as high tea because they think it sounds regal and lofty, when in all actuality, high tea, or "meat tea" is dinner. High tea, in Britain, at any rate, tends to be on the heavier side. American hotels and tea rooms, on the other hand, continue to misunderstand and offer tidbits of fancy pastries and cakes on delicate china when they offer a "high tea."

Afternoon tea (because it was usually taken in the late afternoon) is also called "low tea" because it was usually taken in a sitting room or withdrawing room where low tables (like a coffee table) were placed near sofas or chairs generally in a large withdrawing room. There are three basic types of Afternoon, or Low Tea:

Cream Tea - Tea, scones, jam and cream
Light Tea - Tea, scones and sweets
Full Tea - Tea, savories, scones, sweets and dessert

In England, the traditional time for tea was four or five o'clock and no one stayed after seven o'clock. Most tea rooms today serve tea from three to five o'clock. The menu has also changed from tea, bread, butter and cakes, to include three particular courses served specifically in this order:

Savories - Tiny sandwiches or appetizers



http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HighTeaHistory.htm

Tea is a meal,albeit a small meal in England, usually in the afternoon. Tea and crumpets, anyone?

We've got nothing to worry about!

but I agree with the statement. I've worked in public education for 20 years now, and have watched this in process. Many more children start kindergarten with minimal social/living skills today than even a decade ago. It gets worse every year.

I always talked to him at the grocery store as he sat in the cart. I'd show him what stuff was, talked about the colors of the produce, had him count out how many apples he wanted to take home. . .that kind of stuff.

I was astounded at the number of teachers who actually came up to me and THANKED me for teaching my kid something about numbers and colors!! Uh, gee, I thought that was part of the job description of a mama.

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that things are getting worse in that department. According to those teachers back then, the decline was evident 15 yrs ago.

if they can speak in sentences. We don't expect them to be able to listen for more than 60 seconds or so at a time, or focus on a task for more than 2 or 3 minutes at a time. Or know their last name. Or...never mind. <sigh>

He watches plenty of TV (unrestricted hours, so far) and plays learning games on a computer, and as a result has an excellent cultural vocabulary. He talks clearly in complete sentences using complex structures. He's learning how to read. He enjoys his lifestyle.

Not only is he social, he is mega-social, and instantly sees how to interact with children older and younger to make friends and playmates. Older kids ask to play with him because he's just plain fun to be around.

He still has problems with buttons and socks, let alone laces and knots, but we help him with those things and trust he'll learn as his fine motor skills evolve naturally. He has a budding interest in playing music and dancing, which are aided by the easy access to a variety of instruments and stereos around the home. (Note to parents: for about a hundred dollars, you can get a Casio keyboard with built in speakers, quality drum machine, midi programming, touch-sensitive keys, sustain pedal, hundreds of programmable and preset sampled sounds, and entertain a child endlessly.)

I think it's an error to assume that TV is dangerous to child development except when it actually replaces talking, playing, and caring by the parents. Then there's a real problem, but it's hardly the TV causing the problem.

He doesn't like to sit still, and likes to guide his own inquiries. My wife and I think the grossly-underfunded public schools would only serve to crush his spirit, and intend to home-school and use alternative education environments to avoid this outcome. Why should he spend hours standing in lines, fighting with other kids for a teacher's attention in an overcrowded classroom, when he can learn the same material in ten minutes on his own at a library?

Don't write off the upcoming generations. They seem wiser in ways that standardized tests just don't measure, and Gen-X parents -- for all our myriad other flaws -- are going to make sure they get more out of their early lives than we did.