Finnish reading dogs help kids learn and grow.

“Reading dogs” are no ordinary canines. Reading out loud to a dog can give kids confidence, improve their skills and contribute to their creativity.

Fifth-grader Donita is reading aloud from a children’s book while a Bernese mountain dog called Hilma-Maria listens attentively. When Donita scratches Hilma’s chin, the big dog’s eyes close blissfully.

Hilma is no ordinary dog – she’s a “reading dog,” on the job today at Hovirinta School in Kaarina, a town in southwestern Finland. Hilma’s mistress, Maarit Haapasaari, who is with her in the small classroom, started to use reading dogs in Kaarina in 2011, bringing the method to Finland for the first time.

Reading to a dog can be a highly rewarding experience for kids in need of reading practice. “The idea is to encourage children with reading difficulties to read aloud,” she says. “Dogs will listen contentedly to a child, not caring if the reader makes mistakes or only reads slowly.”

Kids who read to dogs experience a sense of fulfillment that boosts the children’s self-esteem and encourages them to pick up books more readily in future.

Hilma relaxes during a break between reading assignments. (Photo: Ilmari Välimäki).

Reading dogs have also been used to help struggling readers in the other Nordic countries and in the US. The special feature of the system used in Finland is that during the activity only the dog, the child and the dog’s handler are present. “This makes the situation more intimate, so it’s easier for the child to read with no other listeners present,” says Haapasaari.

Inspired by the pioneering work done in Kaarina, many other localities around Finland have adopted the idea. Dozens of dogs today prick up their ears gratifyingly in response to young readers, though reading to dogs does not form part of the official school curriculum.

Heidi Puputti, who teaches a special needs class at Hovirinta School, reckons that reading to dogs particularly helps kids to relax and improves their ability to concentrate.

“Some children may normally be hyperactive in the classroom, but when they read to a dog, they calm down,” she says. “They understand that they are the ones in control of the situation, and that they must consider the needs of the listener. They also learn to be empathic and interactive. And when they read carefully, they notice that they can actually read quite well after all.”

Affectionate audience.

Special-needs teacher Heidi Puputti (left), Maarit Haapasaari of Hali-Koirat (Hug Dogs) and Hilma the Bernese mountain dog hang out in front of Hovirinta School. (Photo: Ilmari Välimäki).

A session with a reading dog typically lasts about five minutes, or up to 15 minutes for more advanced readers. The dogs visit the same schools many times, giving kids a chance to enjoy reading to them repeatedly. 

Donita has also read stories to two other Bernese mountain dogs, called Viljo-Valdemar and Neiti Namu (Miss Cutie). “Viljo was really nice,” she says. “He listened very calmly.”

Bernese mountain dogs are particularly well suited to such tasks, due to their affectionate nature and cuddly appearance, though their large size also gives them a sense of dignity and authority. The breed of the dog is of little importance, though. All reading dogs start training as puppies to accustom them to different settings and people.

“We also keep in mind that some kids may be a bit afraid of dogs,” says Haapasaari. “The children can decide for themselves how close they want to be to the dog. The reading activity can also help children to overcome a fear of dogs.”

Canines and even cows encourage creativity.

Haapasaari provides reading dogs for schools in southwestern Finland through her own business, called Hali-Koirat (Hug Dogs). In addition to being read to, her dogs visit old people’s homes and centres for people with disabilities, to be cuddled and stroked.

“Together with creative writing specialist Veera Vähämaa, we’ve also developed and registered a concept we call ‘Writing stories to tell to dogs,’” says Haapasaari. “Children write their own stories that they can then read aloud to a dog. This kind of activity isn’t practised anywhere else in the world yet.”

In the town of Raisio, not far from Kaarina, another business has set up a similar scheme, but the listeners are “reading cows.” Since it’s impractical to bring such listeners into schools and libraries, the kids also get to enjoy a visit to a farm.

(By Matti Välimäki, October 2016).

https://finland.fi/life-society/finnish-reading-dogs-help-kids-learn-and-grow/ 

The Answer Is in the Book!

History tells us that even at a time when the personal name of God was rarely spoken, the high priest would proclaim the holy name ten times during the annual ritual of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). Today, God’s personal name—as written in the Scriptures—has been almost completely forgotten, being systematically obscured by substitute titles throughout our Bibles.

As a result, there is no lack of opinions about how that name should be pronounced, and discussions about it tend to generate more heat than light. But sincerely held opinions notwithstanding, the Scriptures continue to testify with surprising clarity to the Creator’s name.
One of our colleagues here at BFA International has looked into the principal Hebrew manuscripts and put together a straightforward explanation of what he found regarding the Tetragrammaton or four-letter name of God. He has summarized his findings in a compelling PowerPoint presentation.
With Yom Kippur/the Day of Atonement coming up this week, we felt this would be a timely subject to share with our BFA friends. It goes without saying (but we’ll say it anyway) that the purpose of sharing this information isn’t to stir up contention. On the contrary, we invite you to take a careful look at the material and sincerely consider whether your relationship with the Creator of the universe could be enhanced by the proper, reverent use of His name as it is written in the Hebrew Scriptures. We hope this introduction to the name of God will help you build a biblical foundation for your faith and practice.

 http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=40982304c8e526ee524a39b27&id=8507ac82f0

The other day, I canceled my subscription to the New York Times. The paper’s circulation department says I’ve been getting it delivered to my home for 10 years, but I think it has been much longer.

I told the customer service representative that I was appalled by the paper’s “disgraceful” biased coverage of the presidential election. I told her to make sure she wrote that word down in the space that asked for a reason I was canceling.

It’s not that I back Donald Trump, whom I met for the first time 30 years ago but hadn’t heard from for many years — until after he announced in June 2015 that he was running for president.

And I certainly don’t support Hillary Clinton.

I think both are not only deeply flawed candidates but also damaged human beings.

But the role of a newspaper is — in its news pages — to cover an election objectively and fairly.

What a paper does on its editorial page and what columnists write is entirely different. That’s where the Times’ contempt for Trump should be expressed. And that’s where that paper — any paper — can go to town to gut the son of a gun.

The news pages, and certainly the front page, are sacred ground in the newspaper business where readers should trust that they are getting the facts and no opinion. But it’s not as simple as that.

Papers slant their coverage not only by choosing the words in a story but also by deciding which stories to run and which to ignore.

In the Times’ case, because it’s what is called a broadsheet — a big-size newspaper — there is also the issue of where a story is placed, especially on the front page.

The top right part of a paper like the Times is the most visible area. The bottom left of the page is the least visible.

It’s been clear to me for a while that the Times and other media outlets have been favoring Hillary over Trump. And that’s their right — in the editorial page and in columns.

If you feel the same way, you can dial the Times at 800-698-4637. They’ll offer you a deal to stay. I told them all I wanted was honest coverage.

And I fully understand why that is. Trump has given them tons of negative material with his often wacky and lurid comments. Plus, he’s an outsider not only in political circles but also in media circles and hasn’t built up a store of favors with the press that longtime politicians would have.

And, of course, some would argue that the mainstream media in the US always favor liberal politicians, which Trump isn’t.

But Hillary is no saint.

And the avalanche of recently leaked emails certainly has given the media enough bad stuff to publish about her and her campaign, including a conversation by Hillary’s aides against Catholics that didn’t make it into the mainstream media.

Trump has complained loudly about his treatment by some of the biggest papers in the US. In fact, he’s threatened to pull the credentials of the Times and the Washington Post.

But it wasn’t until very recently that proof surfaced (in leaked emails) as to just how much some of these papers were favoring — and doing favors for — the Clinton campaign.

For instance, the Times’ political reporter, Maggie Haberman (who once worked here at The Post), was called a “friendly journalist” by Clinton staffers who would tee up stories for their campaign.

Haberman was working at Politico when she won her “friendly journalist” status but is now with the Times.

A different leaked memo reveals that another Times reporter, Mark Leibovich, allowed the Clinton campaign to veto quotes given by Hillary before he put them in a story.

When the negotiation over the quotes was completed, Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for the Clinton campaign, wrote to Leibovich to say “pleasure doing business.”

It’s been clear to me for a while that the Times and other media outlets have been favoring Hillary over Trump. And that’s their right — in the editorial page and in columns.

To the Times’ credit, it did break the original story about Hillary using a private email server instead of a government-issued one like everybody else at her State Department.

And checking quotes for accuracy with a source isn’t unusual, although blanket veto power — if that’s what this was — isn’t proper.

I’ve been in this business long enough to know the tit-for-tat negotiations that go on between reporters and sources.

But allowing a source to have too much control over a story makes a paper nothing more than a puppet and destroys the notion of a free press.

This last example is perhaps the most egregious. Another leaked email from Palmieri on July 8, 2015, is a discussion with John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman, and others about a Times story on the costs of some of Hillary’s policies.

Palmieri writes: “I wanted to give you an update on NYT pending story on the costs of policy proposals… I had a pretty frank conversation with them about what an unfair story would do as a further setback in the relationship.” I assume that means relations between Hillary and the Times.

“Maggie thinks it is responsible and that we are not going to have a problem with it — it will have all the caveats that HRC [Hillary Clinton] has not actually proposed these policies… She [Maggie, I assume] is going to read me the story later today off the record to further assure me.”

I assume “Maggie” is Maggie Haberman, who — with another reporter — two days later published a 1,500-word story on Page 19 of the paper with the headline “Clinton Aims an Ambitious Economic Agenda at a Party Shifting Left.” Anyway, that’s why I canceled my Times subscription. (By John Crudele).

http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/why-i-finally-canceled-my-new-york-times-subscription/

Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly.