Kiwi kids have been caught napping

We have reached a new horizon in the ongoing competition between New Zealand and Australia ... we are beating them in sleepiness.

A recent international study shows NZ children are a dozy few points ahead of their Ozzie peers in the sleepiness stakes. We are second behind the United States in having the sleepiest children, with Australia three steps behind.

I am not sure this is a good reason to celebrate beating them at something. Having some of the sleepiest children is hardly a winning formula in a world where being wide awake is a distinct advantage. Wake up New Zealand, the world is passing you by.

The big concern raised in studies such as these is the impact the lack of sleep is having on a child's ability to learn. If they are up late at night watching TV or on the internet, then, of course, they will be tired come the morning; and if this happens night after night, a child (just like an adult) will find it hard to concentrate and stay focused.

The response in some quarters has been to advise parents to get their children to switch off their gadgetry well before bedtime. There is considerable evidence that screen time keeps the brain humming in a way that reading a book does not.

There has been much concern over kids going to school hungry. It may be that being tired from late nights is also impeding learning. It isn't hard to infer that, again like adults, if kids aren't getting enough sleep they will become grumpy and irritable, creating difficulties in the classroom.

Kids, particularly teenagers, will argue quite cogently that 10pm is not late.

They think they are immune to tiredness, believing this only happens to parents and other "old" people. This is delusional.

At the other end of the continuum, we have parents talking about the need to medicate their babies and toddlers on aeroplanes to make them sleep so they won't cry and disturb other passengers. What is it about crying babies that seems to get to people on planes, in cafes, in the supermarket, in the street - have we got so far from reality that we feel we should not have to hear a child cry anywhere?

Babies cry - that's life. Why would people even suggest that infants and toddlers should be medicated on plane trips to spare the ears of others?

Some airlines are now offering "child-free" areas on flights to appease those who cannot abide or feel any empathy for a parent with an upset, crying little one.

I can understand the stress for parents when their child is crying while other passengers give them the evil eye.

I think those parents should hand their crying child to one of the glowering passengers and say: "Here you are - see if you can do better."

It would remind adults that we are all part of the care of small vulnerable persons and certainly give them something useful to do.

There are good reasons why giving medication to a child who does not need it is not a great idea.

It can create other health problems and raises the question: if it is OK to knock a child out with drugs on a long-haul flight, then something is wrong with the world of international travel.

Surely it would be easy to provide passengers with noise-reducing headphones that they can pop on if an infant starts getting upset? Could this be another case of one rule for adults, one rule for toddlers?

Terry Sarten is a writer, musician, social worker and advocate for children's rights to be seen and heard. Feedback email: tgs@inspire.net.nz