The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-10-07

U8ky UA kUUU SSSOSS OMVS ASo Barton, famous child training ex-
 pert, tells you in this, the second of three special articles for NEA
 Service and The Democrat, and
 also contrasts today's scientific
 use of sartOriaI livellness with the
 dull monOtony of other years.
 All children take pride in their appearance. Even a neglected child, accustomed to. rags and not particularly conscious of his looks, will preen and strut when suddenly dressed up. It is as natural for peo- pie to react happily to clothes as for a cat to wash its face.
 This being the case, plus the discovery that color has definite psychological value, we find moth- CTS today far ahead of their fore bears in selecting clothes for their offspring. Not so long ago 1t was considered poor taste to deck out the mite in anything but white, tan or blue. The more "genteel" the family the greater tendency there was to lean over backward and re- strain color. have known children who were confined to tan uniforms for day wear and white in the late afternoons at dressing time" while their happier neighbors on the side street were glorying in blues and pinkS, at least.
 @ Let Child Choose
 But there has come a change in all this. Just as we now buy nur- Sery furniture in gay pastels for baby, and in stronger shades for the e-schooler, we are going in for riot of color in clothes. And 1t is right. It IS still more right to allow the child some say in what he or she is to wear Chil- dren have marked preferences and they feel better in lavender, green or red, as the case may be.
 Then there is the matter of jewelry. For years and years the mother of refined taste refused to think of 1t in terms of her small child. Even the little ring or locket was barred. and remern- Der presenting a five-year-old one time with a short string of pale coral beads the color of an an- gels lips, only to have the mother say, Mary will wear these when she is older" I never saw them again. They were so dainty and lovely, to say nothing of the cost, that I was dismayed. They were not jewelry in the accepted sense, but a fitting adornment for per- feet child.
 Tawdriness is another thing. Children are jewels themselves and are better off without span gles. But today's mother allows the little keepsake, the ring or locket, and 1t detracts nothing. Children love a trinket, so why deprive them, when we ourselves load everything imaginable on our own necks, wrists, ears and hands?
 Good Grooming Basic
 Cleanliness, of course, must ever be the background for beauty. Grooming need not dwell on. The slick head, the clean hands and nails, the well scrubbed teeth.
 These are three things to re- member in dressing the child past babyhood. Sturdiness of clothing that allows for exercise and acci- dent; lightness and warmth and plenty of room ir both shoes and clothes, and cool enough to sat- isfy. Overdressing is still bad taste, and simplicity Is still in style. But why we ever got the notion that gaiety in children's raiment was wrong and common, I'll never be able to tell you. Col or hunger at last is recognized as need, and the gods are smiling.
 NEXT: School fads.
 Copyright, 1887, NEA Service, Incl