Negative consequences, timeouts, and punishment just make bad behavior worse. But a new approach really works.
June Arbelo, a second-grade teacher at Central School, comforts a student who wants to go home during the first day of school.Tristan Spinski/GRAIN
Leigh Robinson was out for a lunchtime walk one brisk day during the spring of 2013 when a call came from the principal at her school. Will, a third-grader with a history of acting up in class, was flipping out on the playground. He’d taken off his belt and was flailing it around and grunting. The recess staff was worried he might hurt someone. Robinson, who was Will’s educational aide, raced back to the schoolyard.
Will was “that kid.” Every school has a few of them: that kid who’s always getting into trouble, if not causing it. That kid who can’t stay in his seat and has angry outbursts and can make a teacher’s life hell. That kid the other kids blame for a recess tussle. Will knew he was that kid too. Ever since first grade, he’d been coming to school anxious, defensive, and braced for the next confrontation with a classmate or teacher.
When Paul Raeburn became a father for the first time, he had one piece of advice to go on. “The most important things to do,” a colleague told him, are “to tell your kids you love them and to spend time with them.” Several years later, he remarried, had a second set of kids, and was determined to learn more about fatherhood than the basic guidelines he’d followed the first time around.
The idea of the American family has changed dramatically over the past few decades: Young Americans are marrying later, finding marriage and parenthood to be less central concerns. But what does the structure of the modern American family mean for us, and how much is it costing us? To unpack the issue, we’ve enlisted author Ty Tashiro, New York Magazine’s Maureen O’Connor, and Mona Chalabi of FiveThirtyEight.
Introducing a new kind of talk show from VICE News. “The Business of Life” is a fresh perspective on the most important issues of our time, as told through the facts, figures, dollars, and cents that shape our world. Hosted by journalist Michael C. Moynihan, each episode brings together an eclectic panel of writers, thinkers, policy experts, and scholars to break down everything you need to make sense of the most complicated topics of our time.
All content is the sole property of VICE News. Materials presented are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the views or endorsement of Bank of America. Bank of America, VICE and/or their partners assume no liability for loss or damage resulting from anyone’s reliance on the information provided
As kids, we all get advice from parents and teachers that seems strange, even confusing. This was crystallized one night for a young Clint Smith, who was playing with water guns in a dark parking lot with his white friends. In a heartfelt piece, the poet paints the scene of his father’s furious and fearful response.
EXPOSING THE MURKY WORLD OF ONLINE ADS AIMED AT KIDS
When YouTube released an app specifically for kids a couple months back, many parents rejoiced. If the app worked as promised, they’d have to worry less about their kids stumbling onto grown-up content on the video network, much less on cable’s carnival of depravity. But a more insidious threat may be afoot in this supposedly innocent walled-off world.
At least, that’s the claim of 10 consumer watchdog groups who filed a joint complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission over the YouTube Kids app, claiming it misleads parents and violates rules on “unfair and deceptive marketing” for kids.
YouTube launched their kid-targeted app in February in the hopes of offering “a safer and easier” way for tots to find shows like Reading Rainbow and Thomas the Tank Engine online. The app promised to limit content to family-friendly videos, channels, and educational clips—a concept pretty much lauded by parents. But child advocacy groups say YouTube is deceiving kids by mixing ads and content without clear delineations.
That may or may not be the case. But in raising the issue at all, the complaint casts light on a wider concern. When it comes to advertising to kids, the rules for the internet are fuzzier than the tightly regulated world of television, in large part because internet advertising itself is always changing. In the meantime, kids could be left vulnerable.
Blurring the Boundaries
The timing of having a child has always been complicated for working women, but egg freezing parties hope to capture their attention by promoting advances in technology alongside cocktails and mingling.
This swanky cocktail party at the Beverly Wilshire is packed with women. It’s the very hotel where Julia Roberts’ Pretty Woman told Richard Gere’s character she wouldn’t settle for being a mistress – that she wanted the fairy tale.
While it’s no longer a Hollywood film set, the young women here also want it all – and they are refusing to settle when it comes to their fertility.
These women are at a “Let’s Chill” cocktail party to learn about egg freezing, this one sponsored by a firm that provides the service.
Aside from cocktails and some fancy hors d’oeuvres, the party includes a presentation from a company representative, personal testimony from women who’ve frozen their eggs, a panel with top fertility doctors, as well a question and answer session and time to mingle.
“It’s pretty casual. We hope it’s fun and more laid back than being in a waiting room,” says Jay Palumbo, the vice president of patient care at EggBanxx, which is hosting the party.
A Connecticut teen is being given chemotherapy against her will.
Some doctors say the decision is made in the best interest of the patient, and not based on maturity.
Only months before turning 18, a Connecticut girl has been told by her state’s supreme court that she must undergo chemotherapy against her wishes in a case that has drawn national headlines and raised questions about what rights minors truly have over their bodies.
The teen, identified in court papers only as “Cassandra C.,” was removed from her home in December after she missed medical appointments for Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or cancer of the lymph system. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society says the disease is highly curable, with an 85 percent chance of survival. Doctors proposed a six-month chemotherapy course. Without it, she is likely to die in two years.
But Cassandra balked at the treatment and said she didn’t want to go through with it. Social services became involved and, after an emergency legal appeal, the state’s high court said on Jan. 8 the teen could be forced to receive the therapy.
Bernice King is in a protracted legal battle with her brothers over control of their father’s bible and Nobel Peace Prize.
At the end of Selma, the new movie about a pivotal campaign in the Civil Rights Movement, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (played by David Oyelowo) rises to address a crowd in front of a courthouse.
It’s a recreation of the moment in which King gave one of his most well-known speeches: “How Long? Not Long.” You know the one: “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
But as the scene goes on, none of the actual language from that speech shows up.
“The intellectual property wasn’t available to us,” Ava Duvernay, the film’s director, told NPR’s Michelle Norris last month. So Duvernay had the less-than-enviable task of writing speeches for the movies from scratch, because King’s speeches — as well as his papers, personal items and likeness — are tightly controlled by his surviving children, Martin, Dexter and Bernice King.
If King was a polarizing figure in his life, in death he has become increasingly central to the story America tells itself about itself. He has a federal holiday and a towering memorial on the National Mall. The builders of that memorial paid his heirs nearly $800,000 to use King’s likeness and words. King is an American hero, but King is also a business.
And like a lot of businesses, the fighting between stakeholders can get really, really ugly.
For years, King’s children have been feuding bitterly over King’s legacy — with outsiders and each other. They’ve made some widely criticized decisions in their stewardship of their father’s estate, like demanding compensation from the filmmakers behind the landmark PBS documentary on the civil rights movement, Eyes on the Prize, for the unauthorized use of King’s image.
They famously filed a suit against USA Today for running the “I Have a Dream” speech — and won. Not long after that, though, they licensed the “I Have a Dream” speech to Alcatel, the French telecom company, for use in a television ad. And right now, Bernice King is engaged in an ugly, protracted court fight with her brothers over ownership of their father’s Nobel Prize and personal Bible.