Do you read parenting books? For real, as in from cover to cover? Did you get anything at all out of the book? Was it overall a great buy with an excellent philosophy, or was there at least one nugget of sage advice that has helped you shape your parenting style? If the answer to that last question was yes, then perhaps parenting books are good for you. For others, not so much.

I remember when I first started writing for ParentDish--way back in the Blogging Baby days. I was pregnant and trying to figure out if I had what it took to be a parent. I bought oodles of parenting books and tried to plow through them as best as I could. I found lots of conflicting information, some of it outdated. I had lots of conversations with other parents and got more of the same. I even asked them what parenting books they recommended. Some loved certain books, some hated said books. One such book was "What to Expect when You're Expecting." I wrote a post about that and got innumerable comments of both praise and abhorring. So it is with any sort of parenting advice.

Once you become a parent, generally all the things you were so scared of dissipate. You become more confident in your decision making and parenting abilities. Most of the time, you actually become a better wife, daughter, friend, sister, etc. in the process. Did the parenting books help? Maybe, maybe not. Being a parent did. The things we all fear--that we'll be bad parents, that we'll hurt our children, that they'll be taken from us through our own negligence--seem to go away the more we actually practice parenting. And that means whatever parenting style comes most naturally to us or works out best for us. And it is different for every person. I don't think it really matters how much attention you paid to WTEWYE--you're probably doing OK in the mommy or daddy department. Parenting books, if you actually have time to read them (see: before children) might offer some insight, but only you will be able to determine the right approach to raising your kids.

Today was the first day of school for my district. The kids came tumbling down the hall and into my classroom, grinning and shy and eager..

As I watched take over the pristine room---looking for their cubbies and their desks, and reading directions together for the morning task---I was struck, as I am every year, by how differently the boys and the girls approach learning and being in school.

In general, the boys in my room have a thirst for movement---their bodies do not want to be still. They want to be touching and exploring and climbing and rolling and wiggling. They are great with spatial problem solving; but are challenged by multi-step directions.

Before I was a mother, I was convinced that gender stereotypes were exactly that: stereotypes brought about by cultural expectations. But then I had a boy, and despite my very best efforts at gender neutrality (a yellow room, offering him a doll along with his trucks, and a kitchen along with his parking garage) my son has become very much a boy in all the typical boyish ways.

Which prompted me to wonder---if young boys are inherently boyish in the ways that they seem to be (active and in need of movement and a multi-modal approach to learning) how are our classrooms providing for their needs? The current standards driven curriculum that is a result of No Child Left Behind, has forced many teachers to narrow their focus, leaving behind some of the breadth and variety in their curriculum that accommodated for active learners.

For the first time in our history, more girls are enrolled in college. Yet boys, while they continue to generally do well at the things they've been stereotyped to be good at (math, science, etc.) are not making the vast academic gains that girls seem to be making.

Which begs the question-how has education changed? And how are boys needs being met or not met within the classroom environment?

Let this be a lesson to us all. If you're going to borrow library books from your local library, please be reminded that "borrow" is the operative word. You get a library card (generally for free) and thereby enter into an agreement wherein said library lends you books for a few weeks...and then you give them BACK. If you don't, you get hit with a meager fine. Last time I borrowed a book, the fine was about five cents a day. Seriously--it's been a LONG TIME since I've borrowed a book. In other words, there's really no incentive to not return the books that were lent to you for free by the very nice people who work at the library. Sometimes, however, when you take those things for granted, things get nasty.

Just ask Heidi Dalibor, who refused to return her copies of White Oleander and Angels and Demons. Nor did Ms. Dalibor remit the fines she owed to the library from which she borrowed the page-turners despite the notices she received in the mail. Furthermore,she declined to take note of the court citation issued to her when she didn't respond to the Grafton Library's calls and letters to her. The result? She was arrested. Cops showed up at her family's house, handcuffed her, and booked her for violating the "overdue library materials" ordinance! Seriously.

My words of advice? Return your library books, people. Or, at the very least, see what policies your town has regarding whether or not you return them.

Pic by jhoweaa.

As kids head back to school with new backpacks and sneakers and grins missing teeth, you're breathing a sigh of relief. Right? Isn't that what you're doing?

Well, maybe not if your child is going to school for the first time (if that's the case, deep breath, everything will be FINE....) But for kids heading back to school for the second year, or the fifth for that matter, you know your child is re-entering the realm of structured routines, after school activities, and yes, homework.

Is it a good thing? The homework, I mean. Some parents say it's the best thing ever--and they hound me from day one for more homework, more homework. Others say the opposite, and wonder why I ever send any homework home at all.

In my opinion homework in the elementary grades serves only one purpose: to get young students into routine of doing homework in preparation for the later grades. Other than that, I think it interferes with the meaningful and enriching activities children should be doing after school and at home with their families. Call me a renegade, but there is quite a bit of research out there to support my view.

Don't get me wrong-I'm not saying children should go home and play video games all afternoon. I think every child should spend time with books every single day--reading independently and being read. I also think that parents should involve their children in other meaningful academic activities that are incorporated into daily life--like playing math games, or doing research on a topic that the child is interested in.

But homework for homework's sake when your kid is 6 years old? I'm not convinced.

I'm curious. Do you think homework in the early grades is important and necessary--or is it overrated, and perhaps taking precious time away from other activities children could be doing?

• The students have role models they see regularly from multiple generations.
• Parents are more likely to be in touch with the parents of their kids' friends.
• It is more likely that their friends' families will have the same values and expectations as their own.
• They tend toward higher rates of participation in extracurricular activities.

How do your kids get to school? How did you get to school when you were a kid? Taking the yellow school bus, walking or riding a bike may all seem like normal methods of getting to school. In the modern world, we drive and carpool as well. But what about in urban environments where a lot of parents don't drive or even own a car? They take the subway.

And they do it ALONE. That's right--I've seen it myself. Kids popping onto and off of the subway without a parent in sight. How do they manage it? And why, you might wonder, do their parents let them do it? Well, necessity is the mother of invention and a lot of other things, it turns out. Kids are going in one direction, their parents in another (to school versus work), and the main way to get around town in New York, for example, is underground.

Turns out, it's probably safer too. Driving in this city is a disaster on a good day. You're a LOT less likely to get into an accident on the subway than you are in your car. Plus, the kids tend to travel in packs on the subway. I never see a kid get onto an empty car at an odd (non-rush hour) time. They pick which car to meet up on and collect as the train makes its stops toward their final destination. I know because I can hear them screeching above my iPod.

Plus, and I know this goes against everything you've heard about New Yorkers, but the people on the subway look out for kids--even when they're not their own. If a kid gets onto a car by herself, I've noted people taking notice and making sure she gets a seat, etc. They care. And they're aware. Basically, it would seem that most of New York is actually watching out for your children.

This doesn't mean that just any kid at any age is ok to ride the subway. The kid has to be old enough to know to follow the rules. And, she needs to be trustworthy. Kids who tend to get into a lot of trouble don't seem to have the same amount of independence their counterparts who can keep it together are afforded. They leave the house at a certain time and are expected back at the house by a certain time in the afternoon, no bones about it. We also have cell phones and other technology to help us stay in touch with our kids more easily than ever. That makes it a lot easier to let a child take public transportation knowing they can--and hopefully do--check in with us.

I never see--ok, well, I rarely see--kids getting into fights or making trouble for other passengers when they're riding the subway to school. Mostly they talk (screech) amongst themselves, they read or they do their homework. The train is actually a MUCH more conducive place to get some work in for adults and children. There's none of that carsick business going on!

The other transportation option in the Big City is usually the bus. Buses are slow but they do the trick just as well. They cost the same amount as the subway but they are above ground and therefore more prone to being part of an accident. You do have to consider the carsickness issue on the bus but some parents really prefer to keep their kids above ground for whatever reason.

While I used to get nervous seeing kids alone on the subway, especially now that I am a parent, I can certainly see the advantages--it's less expensive and safer than driving, takes less time, is better for the environment, gives the kids a chance to hang out together and socialize in the morning and get their work completed, and gives them a sense of direction and independence they might not otherwise have access to. That all sounds great. We'll see how I react when my kid is old enough!

And just how old is that? I've seen kids between the ages of eight and ten, but mostly it's middle school children I see on the subway. What do you think--what age is best for kids to start taking urban transportation ALONE?