According to Harvard professor Daniel Gilbert, I should be in the abyss of depression, so deep that I may never claw my way out. After all, I have nine kids.  And according to this article, that sets me up for a near lifetime of grief. Being rich, he tells me, would have been way better. Way, way better.

“But it’s never the case that more money makes you sadder. If you get millions and millions you never get depressed about it.”

And despite the belief that children were the apples of our eyes, they actually had a negative impact on happiness.

The more kids you had, the sadder you were likely to be, Prof Gilbert said.

US and European studies had shown that people’s happiness did spike while they were expecting a baby but sharply plummeted after the child was born.

The low point came when children reached the ages of 12-16, and recovered only when they had flown the coop, he said.

“In reality … children do seem to increase happiness as long as you’re expecting them, but as soon as you have them, trouble sets in,” he said.

Professor Gilbert is later quoted comparing kids to socks. He says we rationalize the trials  of having children and somehow make it sound like we are having the time of our lives.

“When people own Armani socks they can’t stop telling you they are the best socks, the most amazing socks,” he said.

“(But) I suspect that one of the reasons that people who own Armani socks think they are wonderful is because they have paid $85 for a pair.

Using that analogy, I should think I am wildly happy because I’ve spent more than $85 to raise my kids thus far. But maybe it would be a false happiness? Do I know if I’m happy? I thought I was happy, but now maybe I’m not. What about the Duggars? Are they happy? Their 18th child is on the way (vote on a baby name here). They seem happy. I seem happy.  I’m so confused.

I’m confused because in this NY Times article, Professor Gilbert makes the case that, once you have enough money, more cash will not increase happiness proportionately.

Another way I follow what I’ve learned from data is that I don’t chase dollars now that I have enough of them, because I know that it will take a very large amount of money to increase my happiness by a small amount.

You couldn’t pay me $100,000 to miss a play date with my granddaughters.

And that’s not because I’m rich. That’s because I know that a hundred grand won’t make me as happy as nurturing my relationship with my granddaughters will.

Apparently children will not make you happy, but grandchildren will. One of life’s little ironies, isn’t it, can’t get one without the other.

There are trade-offs, of course. There are trade-offs to buying $85 socks, too. I can almost fill up my gas tank for $85. Of course, if I had fancier socks, I might prefer to walk.

Maybe I am deluding myself. I estimate that while writing this post I have been interrupted by the little darlings 28 times. I was chief consultant on french toast making, I had to express sympathy over an owie, there was a diaper to change and there were various other issues which probably could have waited until I was done. So I was frustrated while trying to write about happiness. But for me it balances out because there will be sticky hugs and funny little pictures that say “Mom I love you” with some of the letters written backwards. I can hear my children giggling outside right now. How much is that worth?

I know, I know it is a little sappy, but even on my worst day I would not trade my 9 kids, even for 9 pairs of Armani socks.

I understand that different people have different ideas of happiness. I like to sit on the beach but have no interest in going in the water. Getting in the water would make me miserable. Others love it. I like chocolate. One of my best friends can’t stand it (the perfect friend to have, too, she never gets into my stash!). I don’t need an expert to tell me what it is that makes ME happy. I choose to decide that for myself. Having children might make Professor Gilbert unhappy. It might make a lot of people unhappy. I just can’t seem to agree that having more kids makes a person even unhappier. As a friend likes to remind us, once you are outnumbered, it is really all the same.

In what I call my other life, I am a speech pathologist. We have a family business and the kids have spent more than a few hours here at the office, working on lessons or playing my staff or interacting with the folks who come into the office. So every now and then I post something here that is related to speech and language therapy.

I got an email today about this case. Seems like the Mattel company isn’t making enough money, they needed to go after a family-owned business that sells materials that a lot of speech pathologists use. If you know a kid who has ever been in speech therapy (especially school-based), chances are that kid has used a Super Duper Publications. product. We order from them to stock the office. I have no other relationship with them than as a satisfied customer. They didn’t ask me to write this, and I won’t get a thing from them for posting about it.

This is from a Newsire.com post that I read today:

Super Duper, started by Thomas and Sharon Webber 22 years ago in Greenville South Carolina, has provided tens of thousands of autistic and other learning disabled children with helpful educational products. Since 1987, the Webbers have used the words “AND SAY” and “SAY AND” in the titles of their speech and language materials, including workbooks, card decks, and games.

In March, 2004, Mattel opposed a trademark registration the Webbers had filed for use for the name “SORT AND SAY” on a line of special education magnetic games. A year later, Mattel filed to cancel three other Super Duper registered marks , FISH & SAY, FOLD AND SAY, and SEE IT!, SAY IT!.

I have looked through Super Duper catalogs hundreds of times. I have never once thought “Oh, MY! That reminds me of a Mattel product.” I’m just a little fish in a really big pond, but I just can’t see how Super Duper is hurting anyone by naming products–products that are designed to get kids to SAY WORDS–using the word “say.”

Super Duper then filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a finding that its 15 SAY trademarks did not infringe on any of Mattel’s trademarks. Mattel responded by claiming Super Duper’s use of these SAY marks on its special education products amounted to trademark infringement and dilution of the Mattel’s SEE ‘N SAY electronic pull toy. Mattel asked the court to prevent Super Duper from publishing any of its materials using the 15 marks, and sought $10 million in damages.

The case was tried last week. At trial, Super Duper showed that, unlike Mattel, it is a direct mail order seller, has no retail outlets, does not compete in the toy industry, and makes only therapy materials for highly trained professionals and parents to use with autistic and other special needs children.

Nevertheless, the trial court, ignoring the usual practice of ruling on complicated trademark issues from the bench, submitted the case to the jury, which found that seven of Super Duper’s marks had infringed upon and diluted Mattel’s mark.  It awarded the $5.6 billion dollar (annual income) toy company $400,000 in damages plus the right to prevent the Webbers from selling any of their educational products named with these marks.

The Webbers insist that none of their marks infringe upon or dilute the Mattel toy trademarks, and that nothing that they have done has hurt Mattel in any way.  This week they will appeal the verdict to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and continue to fight for the right to use “AND SAY” on their special education products.

The decision by the appeals court will affect all businesses in general and educational publishers in particular, as it will spell out just how far monster-sized businesses like Mattel can use their limitless resources to try and take away everyday words like SAY from smaller companies and individuals.

I can understand protecting a brand word (you know, name brand words for sodas and tissues and all of that), but SAY?  The logical conclusion to this would be that only mammoth corporations can SAY anything without being sued.

I’m going to go order something from Super Duper. My staff will love me

It has been a busy week, so I’m just getting around to posting my column from last week (ouch!). When I went to the site to cut and paste I noticed that the evil “what about socialization” comment had raised its ugly head. Really, the public schools should teach people to be more creative in coming up with arguments against something.  You can see the column and comments here (scroll to the bottom of the page). Please feel free to leave a comment here or after the column on socialization. I know, I know it is the same old socialization question, but I keep hoping that maybe those who ask it will understand that homeschooling isn’t about hiding. That is another post.

The column is here or you can just keep reading

Homeschooling the special-needs child

She would have been a stereotypical soccer mom had things come out differently. She would have been the mother who, in between caring for her family and carpooling the neighbor kids, would have organized a bake sale, brought snacks for the team and even helped to coach. Perhaps she would have enjoyed going backstage, painting sets and getting involved in children’s theater.

But that wasn’t the way life turned out. She may never sit on the sidelines yelling herself hoarse while her son slides one past the goalie. She will probably never sit in the front row anxiously mouthing the words to a suddenly shy thespian.

The mother I’m thinking of was blessed with children with special needs.

When the local parents’ group needs a volunteer, she is there. She still organizes fundraisers, but somehow, it seems, the stakes are higher. She drives to appointments, she makes calls to advocate for her children and for others.

And nobody ever hears her ask why. No “why me?” No “why them?” Instead, she welcomes those very people her children go to for help. She supports them, as they support her children.

Such moms exist, and I see them often in my role as a speech pathologist. Parents of special-needs children choose to homeschool, too, and the number of families making that choice seems to be growing.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees a “free and appropriate education” (FAPE) for all children. This federal mandate has not clearly addressed homeschooled children. How homeschooled children with special needs are treated in regards to provision of a free and appropriate education is a decision that is left up to each state.

In California, homeschooling families typically either file an R-4 affidavit with the California Department of Education to be classified as a private school or enroll in a charter school with a home study component. Special education services are provided by the district of residence for students homeschooling under an R-4 affidavit.

Typically, that means those children are given access to school-based special education services at the same level given to private school students.

Parents often opt to enroll their children in a charter school with an independent home program, and then the charter school is responsible for assessment and service provisions just like any other public school.

Many families find that the homeschool environment makes some special education services redundant. In a traditional school setting, a child’s education plan might call for small group instruction. At home with a parent, the child is getting more individual attention than he would otherwise.

Home education isn’t for everyone, and having a special-needs child can make the task more challenging. Still, the rewards are worth it to many. Homeschooling a child with special needs provides a way to shelter a child, to a certain extent, from bullying and from interacting with kids who pass along negative behaviors. It also allows the parents to tailor a child’s educational experience to capitalize on strengths and intensively target weaknesses.

I can’t think of a more individualized education plan.

This morning the school bus belched black smoke drove past our house. Actually, there are a couple (a few) of them that rumble pass by. I wonder how much money we’d save in gasoline (and how much cleaner the air might be) if everyone stayed home from school for a day.

Seems like bloggers who blog about poop are making a fortune. I thought I might as well throw in the occasional poop post just to see what it does for my writing career. For a moment there, I thought that career was headed down the toilet, but writing about poop may just revive it.

If this doesn’t work out, I could always try selling poop. A piece of dino-doo went for nearly a thousand bucks at auction. Back in the time known as BK (before kids), Brian and I went on a week-long dinosaur dig in Montana. It was great. We lived in a teepee at the dig site. We were allowed to bring back small fragments of bone and yes, even of copralite (that is, dinopoop). If only I’d known all those pieces I left behind were so valuable.

So poop is a precious commodity. We must be in a recession. I’m still planning to throw out poopy diapers. I may lose a fortune, but I’m willing to take that risk.

Life in the country provides us with a lot of opportunities to study the life cycle. First, we had spring chickens and roosters gone wild.

Then we signed up to count bees as part of The Great Sunflower Project.

Last week, in a moment of temporary insanity, I took 6 kids to a pet store and came out with 6 fish, 2 crabs, 3 live plants, a couple of snails, and a cute little frog who met an untimely end.

Next morning, I was sleeping peacefully when my girls rushed in, insisting that there were new fish in the tank. Baby fish. “Fish don’t have babies,” I said.  I rolled over and tried to go back to sleep. The girls started fighting over whether the baby fish were brown or red or yellow or blue. I finally gave up on sleeping and went to go look at the imaginary fish.

We counted 4 babies.

We then decided to launch a rescue effort since the crabs and a couple of the bigger fish looked like they were trying to make appetizers out of the babies. After removing all the plants and getting the net in there, Brian pulled out 13 baby fish. Some were brown, some blue, some yellow, and some kind of red, so all those who argued were correct.

We’re going to need a new tank. I think this time, I’ll shop alone.

Last Saturday, I participated in the Autism Fair, sponsored by Family Soup. I was there with information mostly about speech therapy, but I also had a little bit about homeschooling. One family came by–they didn’t say hello, by the way–and the boy asked his mother, “Homeschooling…isn’t that for those people who don’t like to be social?”

Tralee Pearce wrote an article for the Globe and Mail about parents who blog about their children.

Writing about your daughter’s toilet-training misadventures could net you $40,000 a month and a legion of fans. But some mommy and daddy bloggers are quitting the game in fears that their digital confessions have become exploitation.

Well, that sure caught my attention. I have a son who is potty training and frankly, it isn’t going so well. In his words, “I can’t like it,” his way of saying he has no intention of complying with anything I am asking him to do. He can’t like it. There is no hope.

I write about homeschooling my kids. I don’t give you blow-by-blow action of every detail of our lives. Maybe that is the problem. I’m not exploiting enough. 40K a month? For writing about pooping in the potty?

Note to self: Exploit the homescooling angle or write more about poop or…..something. Call my editors. Len? Susan? Are you listening?

I posted a couple days ago an April arrest list for UNqualified teachers. I thought there might be a couple more as the month wound down. I wasn’t expecting a three-peat by Stephanie Ragusa. Would someone please put a chastity belt on this woman?

Police are still trying to figure out the motive for this special education teacher who is facing 12 counts of permitting abuse of a minor and another 10 counts of rape.

Last week, we took a little trip over to Gaiser Pets, “just to look.” And we did look. We saw birds and rodents (ick!) and lots of other creepy crawly things that I’m not open-minded enough to invite into my home. We also saw a cute little bunny and a whole bunch of fish. We had been talking about getting a fish tank up and running again, so we thought a recon mission was in order.

You can’t take 6 kids to a pet store “just to look,” and expect to hear the end of it. We went back to look again.

Somehow we managed to come home with 6 fish, 2 crabs, 3 live plants, a couple of snails that hitched a ride, and one cute little aquatic frog.

Sometime in that first night, the cute little aquatic frog climbed out of the tank and went to wherever it is that aquatic frogs go to when they climb out of a perfectly good tank.

Naturally, I was the one to find him. He had apparently gone 10 rounds with a dust bunny in an altercation he ultimately lost.