Baumrind's Authoritative Parenting

I have shared the The differences between Conditional mand Unconditional Parenting  . What about Authoritative parenting.? Authoritative Parenting features in Baumrind schema of Parenting styles – Authoritarian , Permissive and in the middle Authoritative parenting style. The parenting author Myrna Shure whose books focus on problem solving said to me that her approach does not fit into any of the categories described by the Baumrind schema. It is clear that authoritative parenting= conditional parenting.

Dr Ross Greene was asked why he did not elaborate on Plan A techniques = helping parents impose their will in a more effective way. He replied that helping parents to make their kids more compliant will get in the way of parents becoming better collaborative problem solvers. When combining approaches kids get 2 different messages and it is confusing. When the going is tough parents tend to fall back on their old ways, because it is easier to punish, give consequences and rewards than to solve problems in a collaborative way

'Authoritative Parenting -is defined as  high in control and warmth; mature demands of and responsiveness to children; allows lots of discussion and considers children's opinions before making final decision; have set rules and guidelines; use rationale and logic when disciplining. 

This sounds good but the reality is that when parents are highly controlling using rewards and punishments, the warmth and empathy becomes rather perfunctory and conditional and kids concerns are not taken seriously. Rules and guidelines are not formulated together with kids but in a unilateral way and discussions are usually about the logic of the 'imposed ' punishments and consequences.

The proof is in Diana Baumrind on writing on parenting. It leans heavily on control through extrinsic motivation and warmth and love is conditional. In his book Unconditional Parenting  and in the articleRethinking Baumrind's autoritative parenting  Alfie Kohn writes the following.

 She describes parenting as being "authoritarian" on one side, "permissive" on the other side, or "authoritative" (read: just right) in the middle. In reality, though, her favored approach, supposedly a blend of firmness and caring, is actually quite traditional and control-oriented -even if less so than Option 1. In fact, a close reading of Baumrind's research raises questions about the recommendations she offers, particularly her endorsement of "firm control."To begin with, Baumrind (1972) has argued against unconditional acceptance of children by their parents, declaring that "the rule of reciprocity, of paying for value received, is a law of life that applies to us all." She continues: "The parent who expresses love unconditionally is encouraging the child to be selfish and demanding" - suggesting that an economic model for human relationships may go hand-in-hand with a dim view of human nature. She also assumes that "structure" in the family requires the use of extrinsic motivators and "contingent reinforcement," which she strongly supports. She approves of spanking, dismisses criticisms of punishment as "utopian," and declares that parents who don't use power to compel obedience will be seen as "indecisive" (Baumrind 1996)

Unfortunately, the research she cites to show that authoritative parenting works best doesn't support any of these positions. Her original findings were interpreted as proving that a combination of warmth and "firm control" (or "enforcement") was optimal. But another researcher who looked at the data carefully (Lewis 1981) discovered that the positive outcomes for children of authoritative parents didn't actually seem to be connected to the use of firm enforcement at all. Kids whose parents were warm but not controlling did just as well as kids whose parents were both - probably, she suggested, because control in the traditional sense isn't required to create structure and predictability as Baumrind (and many others) assumed. By the same token, Baumrind seemed to blur the differences between "permissive" parents who were really just confused and those who were deliberately democratic. There were no problems with the children of the latter parents, suggesting, in the words of another psychologist, that "a close look at Baumrind's actual data may reveal significant support for child-centered parenting" (Crain 2003) even though Baumrind has created a very different impression because she personally opposes that style. Subsequent research using Baumrind's formulation seems to support this view. A huge study of teenagers (Lamborn et al. 1991) did indeed find benefits from what was described as "authoritative" parenting, but that term was defined to mean that parents were aware of, and involved with, their children's lives, not that they were even the least bit punitive or controlling. Another study (Strage and Brandt) similarly cited Baumrind by way of suggesting that parents need to be both supportive and demanding, but it turned out that being demanding when their children were young was unrelated, or even negatively related, to various desirable outcomes. By contrast, the extent to which the parents had been supportive, and also the extent to which they had encouraged their children's independence, had a strong positive relationship to those same outcomes.

Should Parents be friends with their kids?

Lots of parenting articles and books admonish parents - Be a parent, don't be your kid's friend. And when I see this I recall the following Biblical sources usually cited when discussing the parent –child relationship.

In this week's Parasha-portion Genesis 31:46, we read how Jacob- Ya'akov instructs his BROTHERS to gather stones and form a mound. This mound   was to be a monument and a witness to the treaty between and Laban and Jacob. The obvious question is that he had only one brother   Esau and he was not around. Rashi answers that Jacob referred to his sons as ' brothers' because they identified with his struggle and were committed to him. The relationship between Jacob and his sons could be described as an older brother-sibling relationship.

Further on in the Book of Genesis 45:8 , Joseph reveals himself to his brothers and he says that G-d has placed him as an Av= father to Pharaoh.  Rashi explains that the word Av=father as being a friend and a patron = from the Latin/greek  'pater'.  The word patron means a benefactor and protector.

Traditionally kids show respect to their parents by addressing them with the words my father- mother, my teacher. So from these sources the relationship could be described as one of an older brother, friend or mentor.

It is pretty obvious that a parent should not make her kid her confidant and burden her child emotionally with all her troubles and that she doesn't share everything. But being a friend of your kid helps the parent to be a ' real, genuine   and authentic person'. Alfie Kohn Alfie Kohn  reminds us that your child needs a human being – flawed, caring and vulnerable – more than he or she needs someone pretending to be a crisply competent Perfect Parent. If parents don't share with kids things they enjoy or hate, or their needs that they have, kids will never be able to empathy with parents, and see that they are real people who also have needs. Real people are not perfect, screw up and make mistakes. Apologizing to kids not only models how that should be done, but shows that it is possible to acknowledge to ourselves and others that we make mistakes and that things are sometimes our fault, without  losing face or feeling hopelessly inadequate. But apologizing exposes our fallibility and vulnerability and makes us feel a little unsafe when we stand on the perfect parent pedestal, a position of ultimate and unquestionable authority. Even saying thank you to your child in a sincere and genuine way, that without their help you would have been lost exposes your vulnerability. There is nothing to fear because it is when we expose our vulnerability, we create connection and facilitate learning   opportunities.  Brene Brown teaches that it is vulnerability that creates great business leaders and when you shut off vulnerability, you shut off opportunity. If vulnerability is good for business leaders, how much more is it so for parents!

 Another reason why parents fear developing a genuine and warm relationship with kids is that it will compromise their ability to set limits , impose their authority and control them.

In fact the opposite is true. Do you ever wonder why parents and teachers are the last to know when kids screw up or act in an inappropriate way? When kids feel that they are unconditionally accepted and loved by their parents for who they are , and trust them to be their guides and help, kids will come to parents for help. It is our healthy attachments with kids that allow us to be their guides and mentors.

We can set limits in a unilateral way and demand compliance or we can let kids participate in setting limits using the CPS – collaborative problem solving approach. When our concerns and expectations are addressed by the agreed solutions, we are in fact setting a limit together with the child.

As parents and educators we really want our kids to learn to set limits. Instead of giving a list of rules and consequences we can offer them principles and guidelines to help them navigate the world. We want kids to derive limits and guidelines on how to act from the situation itself and what other people need .If so, then our coming up with   limits, and especially specific behavioral limits and imposing them on kids makes it less likely that kids will become moral people who say that the situation decrees a kind of a boundary for appropriate ways to act.

Parents should be friends with their kids, but it is not a friendship of equals but similar to the trust, respect and caring that a mentor shows for his student.

Barbara Coloroso was once asked to help parents with their young teenager. When he was a pre-teen he was such a good kid, he always listened to us. Now he no longer listens to us, just to his teenage friends. She answered the parents that nothing has changed – he used to listen to you, now he is listening to them. When a parent is a friend and a mentor the child is not being compliant but self determined and acts in an autonomous way giving expression to the values he acquired from parents and teachers and has made his own.

Korach 73 - Put your relationship first

Being religious is problematic , it can lead to a person being self righteous. So as parents we should put the relationship with our kids first ! From my parenting by the book blog 
http://tinyurl.com/k2vsekd

The mission of the spies to the land of Israel ended in disaster. The generation of the spies lost their right to enter the 'promised land' and they were now destined to spend the next 40 years in the desert. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with Moses' Leadership. Korach and his followers challenged Moses right to lead and started a rebellion against Moses. God intervenes -  Moses remains the leader and Korach and his followers are destroyed.

The commentators talk about how destructive strife, conflict and friction are to a community and encourage ' Shalom '  peace without sacrificing God's truth.

' Peace –harmony 'is the vessel through which God's blessings is able to reach us as a community and a family.

There is an interesting Medrash Rabah  insight taught by the Rabbis on Psalm 34 verse 15.

'Seek out shalom=peace and pursue it ' The verse says – seek out peace but not Mitzvot = good deeds.

 This medrash is very strange. Are we not taught to seek out and do good deeds , is this not our purpose here in this world?  (our ) Rabbi   Yeruchum from Mir explains that our purpose is really to seek relationships with people based on shalom. If our purpose is to ' collect ' as many good deeds as possible, the focus becomes 'oneself 'and there is the danger of a ' self righteousness'  distorting one's judgment. But when we give our good deeds the context of shalom and relationship, our focus is on the relationship and other people.

What does this Medrash say to us as parents ?

We should ask ourselves – what type of relationship do I have with my kids ? Do they see me as a help, caring and loving , somebody who they can trust and learn from or  do they see me as being judgmental, critical , demanding and show less love when they screw up. ? Instead of being right, and self righteous insisting on ' our principles and standards ' we should focus on relationship.

It suggests that we  that we should put our relationship with our kids first.

Alfie Kohn in his book Unconditional parenting suggests that  we should be careful not to jeopardize our relationship with our kids when we try to get them to do certain things or say the unnecessary Nos. We should consider whether some of our demands are worth pursuing in the first place, are they developmentally appropriate to a young kid or a kid that is not flexible and has a low frustration tolerance. We can try and make the environment more user-friendly so we need to exercise less control – for example –parents , whose kids play in a safe environment and serve healthy food including for deserts don't need to be controlling in the park or home , limiting what kids can do and  forcing them  to eat healthy foods. We can drop ' our principles ' and lower the rope when it comes to kids rooms so the only place that is truly a child's own does not have to be maintained at high parental standards. We need to ask if what we are doing or demanding is worth the possible strain on the relationship.

While ' relationship ' is important as an end , Alfie Kohn suggests the following benefits.

Misbehavior is easier to address and problems are easier to solve – when children feel safe enough with us to explain the reasons why they did something wrong. CPS – collaborative problem solving rests on the info we gather from the child about his concerns and perspectives.

Kids are more likely to come to us when they are in trouble or to look to us for advice.    Why are parents and teachers the last to know when their kids or students screw up.?

Kids are more likely to want to spend time with us when they can choose whether to do so.

When kids know they can trust us and their concerns are generally taken into account , they are more likely to do what we ask if we tell them it's really important.

The medrash is telling us parents to put the relationship first , be less self righteous and reconsider ' principles and standards - because ' relationship ' is the vessel through which God brings his blessing to us, relationship is so important in itself and in a practical sense helps us raise  reflective , caring and responsible kids.

How Children succeed - Paul Tough

     In   How children succeed - Paul Tough   argues that the qualities that matter most have more to do with character: skills like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control and grit. Instead of focusing on cognitive academic skills , schools should focus on character.

I have just read about the book, listened to a few podcats and my first reaction was to think of Alfie Kohn. Besides the importance of attachment parenting and the negative impact of poverty on kids brains , I think Paul Tough gets it wrong on a few accounts.

He talks about self control and grit in an econtalks podcast –' And so grit was this idea that Angela Ducksworth came up with; it certainly involved a lot of self-discipline but also involved a large degree of passion. She defined it as perseverance in pursuit of a passion. So, it's somebody who has a very strong goal and does not let obstacles get in the way; does not give up; does not get distracted. And so she now feels like grit is the more important and more predictive of these non-cognitive skills.'

In the podcast the discussion ignores the crucial element of passion , a possibility of intrinsic motivation fuelling the self discipline and focuses on motivating kids on achievement and the long term pay offs of working hard and having self discipline. In a note - article ' why is self discipline over-rated ' AK says the  limitations of grit itself, as  a concept is  that it ' ignores motivational factors (that is, why people persevere), thus conflating genuine passion for a task with a desperate need to prove one’s competence, an inability to change course when appropriate, and so on. '

What comes across from what I have heard and read is that kids do not see the ' learning in itself ' as something meaningful and worthwhile , they are just focused on achievement and being successful.

So as Ak says , talk about grit, self control and self discipline is more about getting kids to meet adult expectations and be compliant. Character education is less about meeting kids needs for autonomy , competence and relatedness but about meeting adult expectations and getting kids to listen and do what they are told.

Character education has to given in the context of cooperative learning, community and a place where problems are solved in a collaborative way taking into account both adult and kids concerns. Kids should be helped to reflect on how they impact on others and at the same time get their needs met and support others.

This cannot take place in a competitive environment and where a discipline code uses rewards and consequences and ignores kids' concerns.

Paul Tough says schooling focuses on cognitive skills, whereas kids need qualities that  have more to do with character which he calls non-cognitive skills like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control and grit.

He fails to understand that we use cognition all the time. Just like in academic learning kids need to be active in constructing meaning , kids need to be pro-active and make meaning of their socio-moral learning.

The self -control displayed by kids in the marsh mellow test was more about thinking, problem solving and finding ways to distract oneself from eating the marsh mellow than from good -old fashioned self control.

We would go along way in helping kids acquire grit etc by trying to help them develop a passion for learning and make meaning of what they are doing. Life is a process , not just achieving goals and then moving onto the next goal.

One of the reasons that Paul Tough thinks that cognitive skills are not worth much is that he and kids don't see any value in the learning itself. If there is value in the learning itself then both the cognitive and non-cognitive skills come together.

I recommend Paul Tough and all to read the following articles

What children really learn from failure - Alfie Kohn

Character education - how not to teach values - Alfie Kohn

Why is self discipline overrated - Alfie Kohn

Caring kids - the role of schools - Alfie Kohn

Modeling Behavior is behaviorist - Not SDT or CPS

Parents or teachers mistakenly think that if they are not giving rewards or consequences, but merely modeling appropriate replacement behavior or language they are using ' gentle or positive discipline and certainly not being ' behaviorist'.

The Self Determination Theory - SDT teaches that if kids needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are being met , kids become committed , intrinsically motivated , competent and caring people.

Teaching replacement behaviors by modeling as Alfie Kohn shows below ignores the whole child – autonomy , the context of the behavior and values- relatedness.

CPS – collaborative problem solving does not focus on behaviors but  on the concerns of kids in the context of unsolved problems. Teaching replacement behaviors instead of focusing on concerns and problems , the context, fails to address the kid's need for competence.

Here are 2 excepts from Alfie Kohn on Modeling behavior

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/challenging.htm

It’s widely accepted that, in order for children to learn to be good people, they should be shown how to act. Parents in particular try to set an example by the way they treat others. And, indeed, some studies suggest that children are more likely to donate to charity if they’ve watched someone else do so. On the other hand, modeling doesn’t always work on its own. In fact, there is evidence that “exposure to paragons of helpfulness may undermine the intrinsic motivation to help.”[3]  Young adults who watched highly helpful people came to view themselves as less altruistic.

Part of the problem is that modeling is a concept rooted in behaviorism. It began as a refinement of the principles of operant and classical conditioning. Those principles couldn’t account for the fact that people sometimes learn from what they’ve observed, acting in ways for which they themselves received no reinforcement. But modeling, like reinforcing, is just another technique for getting someone to behave in a particular way; it doesn’t necessarily promote a dedication to, or an understanding of, that behavior. Because mere imitation doesn’t achieve those more ambitious goals, we need to supplement the showing with telling — the precise inverse of what I’ve proposed for academic instruction in classrooms.

It may make sense not only to use explanation as a separate strategy alongside modeling, but to combine the two approaches into what might be called “deep modeling.” Here, we not only set an example for children but try to make it clear to them what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. Verbalizing is a familiar strategy to many of us, from self-talk therapies to the technique known as “think aloud” that’s intended to help students comprehend more of what they read. Deep modeling is different in that the narration is coming from someone else.

Consider the challenge of real-world ethical conundrums. It’s fine for parents to try to model honesty and compassion for their children, but what happens when those two values seem to pull in opposite directions – for example, when telling the truth may hurt someone’s feelings? Similarly, it’s easy to say that kids should look out for other people’s interests, but to what extent must they give up something they enjoy so that someone else will benefit?

We can let children know how we think (and feel) our way through similar dilemmas by describing to them the factors that we consider in making such decisions: the relevance of our previous experiences, the principles from which we’re operating, and all the thoughts and emotions that we take into account. From watching and listening to us, kids not only learn more about how we try to live a moral life; they also figure out that morality is rarely cut-and-dried.

Deep modeling might be thought of as a way of taking children “backstage.” To that extent, it’s very much like writing — or conducting an authentic science experiment — in front of them. They’re able to experience what happens before (or behind or beneath) the ethical decisions that adults make, the essays they publish, and the scientific principles they discover — all of which are usually presented to children as so many faits accomplis.

From http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/behaviors.html

But any time educators (or parents) frame the issue in terms of the need to change a child's behavior, they are unwittingly buying into a larger theory, one that excludes what many of us would argue are the things that really matter: the child's thoughts and feelings, needs and perspectives, motives and values -- the things, in short, that result in certain behaviors. The behavior is only what's on the surface; what matters is the person who does the behaving... and why she does so.

Here are two students in two different classrooms, each of whom just gave half his lunch to someone else. The first student did so in the hope that the teacher would notice this and praise him: "Isn't that a nice thing to do! I'm so proud of you! I really appreciate your sharing like that!" The second student did so without knowing or caring whether the teacher saw him: He was simply concerned that the kid sitting next to him might go hungry.

The two behaviors are identical. What matters are the reasons and feelings that lie beneath. Discipline programs can (temporarily) change behavior, but they cannot help people to grow. The latter requires a very different orientation in the classroom: the ability to look "through" a given action in order that we can understand the motives that gave rise to it as well as figuring out how to have some effect on those motives.

Consider, then, a very specific contrast between two ways of responding to a child who shared his lunch. The teacher who is preoccupied with the behavior -- and who seeks, in this case, to produce more of it -- would probably resort to praise. A different approach, derived from Martin Hoffman's work on "inductive discipline," would be to help the child attend tto how his decision to share has affected someone else (in this case, the recipient of his food). "Boy, would you look at Jaime's face! He is one happy guy now that he has enough to eat, isn't he?"

The message of praise is: I [the person with the power] approve of what you did, so you should do it again.  It is a way of reinforcing a behavior and, in the process, probably strengthening the child's dependence on adult approval. "Look at Jaime's face," on the other hand, is concerned with helping the sharer to experience the effects of sharing and to come to see himself as the kind of person who wants to make other people feel good -- irrespective of verbal rewards.

Even when this particular response isn't used, our goal should be nothing less than assisting children in constructing an image of themselves as decent people. Programs or practices that focus on behaviors -- even on promoting "positive" behaviors -- can't achieve that goal. In fact, they make that result less likely, partly because of how rewards tend to undermine people's interest in whatever they had to do to snag the reward, and partly because a behavioral focus in itself is both limited and limiting.

-- adapted from Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Co

Praising kids - Alfie Kohn, Carol Dweck , Social Conservatives

In recent years the self esteem movement has come under fire especially in relation to verbal rewards – ' Praise'. Alfie Kohn has just written a summary of his approach to praise and how it differs from both that of social conservatives and Carol Dweck.

Alfie Kohn , Carol Dweck, Social Consevatives - Praise

He takes issue with the idea that one should praise ' effort ' rather than ability . Carol Dweck showed how helping kids to acquire a growth mindset,  - that by making an effort we can succeed - rather than praising their ability, we can help them be successful.

'Praising kids' efforts may be counterproductive as it may signal that they have to try very hard because they are not very good at what they are doing. It may communicate that they are not really capable and therefore unlikely to succeed at future tasks. For this reason others have suggested praising ' ability' which is supposed to enhance one's feeling of competence. This is also problematic. As Carol Dweck has shown ,that when kids attribute success or failure to something that is outside their control, such as a ' fixed' level of ability,  they are discouraged from taking responsibility for working to improve their performance. It may be most sensible to avoid casting praise as a comment on either effort or ability.' -AK

What should we do instead of praise. ? To answer this we must revisit our parenting goals. We want our kids to be self directed and act in an autonomous way, self assess and evaluate the impact they have on others and the environment, find meaning and enjoyment in what they are doing, focus more on the process and less on achievement, focus on their feelings – the intrinsic reward rather than achievement and pleasing others. We also want them to be supportive of others and not to manipulate them with praise to get what they want or show approval to others who jump through their hoops.

The way to go is to use ' declarative language '  just describing what we saw and then pausing. This gives the kid time to reflect on what you have noticed and  also experience some inner pride or other feelings for eg.  satisfaction. We can then ask open ended questions – how did you feel about what you did ?  what were you thinking about when you drew the dog? What made you decide to end the essay that way ?

'These comments and questions help a kid focus his attention on his feelings and thoughts rather than on his accomplishments. He is talking about what he did and self assessing. By emphasizing the process rather than the product, the kid will realize that it's the trying that counts.'  Myrna Shure 

By focusing more on achievement parents put a full stop on life, when we focus on the process we focus on life and the new challenges it presents us. 

Bullying - Self Determination Theory , Collaborative problem solving

Bullying in schools can be explained by the fact that the needs of kids for autonomy, competence and relatedness are not being met.  Traditional approaches to bullying focus on behavior  - the symptoms of the underlying problems  - instead of  lagging skills and unmet concerns and needs of bullies , their victims and the student body as a whole.

The needs for competence can be addressed by using collaborative problem solving. Many cognitive skills are taught indirectly when using CPS.  Problems are solved in the context of the child's concerns and when he participates in finding mutually satisfying solutions . The process also supports the autonomy of the child. Traditional social skills training is top down skills training and ignores the 'concerns' of the child. Bullies are lacking the skills to have their needs being met and rewards, punishments and other consequences won't teach them lacking skills.

http://www.livesinthebalance.org/b-bullies-and-bullied

Relatedness  -  It is not enough to avoid external control and motivation and have trusting relationships between teachers and kids , schools need to move away from compliance and focus on  building a caring community of learners.  This framework supports kids' autonomy – being connected to their true inner selves , competence and relatedness. The fact that bullies were often bullied themselves , means that the need for relatedness was not being met , instead they were being emotionally tormented.

 According to Po Bronson – Nurtureshock 

 ' The science of bullying has shown that bullies feed off of bystanders’ reactions. While we might wish bystanders intervened, in fact all they have to do is turn their backs and stop rewarding the bully with their attention, because it’s attention that bullies seek. The worst thing bystanders can do is be a rapt audience'

It appears that the bully is using ' relatedness ' of other kids to support him in bullying the victim.

  Alfie Kohn          'Another reason why social skills training is unsuccessful is that social skills are taught ,' but not the traits of generosity , caring and altruism. Schools are rather competitive with no cooperative learning , kids ranked one against another, and academic and sports achievement glorified with award ceremonies. Schools themselves are under pressure of high stakes standardized testing and little time is left for promoting socio-moral learning or building a caring community of learners. We can't expect kids to internalize conflict resolution skills and values of community when the ' structure ' of school - the competitive nature and zero tolerance discipline policies go against collaborative solving of problems and cooperative learning needed to create a caring community of learners. In fact , since the introduction of zero tolerance discipline policies behavior problems have increased and kids feel less safer in schools. 

The finding that schools become less safe as a result of adopting zero-tolerance policies will sound paradoxical only to those readers who believe that threats and punishment can create safety. In reality, safety is put at risk by such an approach. A safe school environment is one where students are able to really know and trust – and be known and trusted by – adults. Those bonds, however, are ruptured by a system that’s about doing things to students who act inappropriately rather than working with them to solve problems. “The first casualty” of zero-tolerance policies “is the central, critical relationship between teacher and student, a relationship that is now being damaged or broken in favor of tough-sounding, impersonal, uniform procedures. '   Alfie Kohn

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/safety.htm

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/cktrots.htm

Po Bronson says that bullies are not lacking skills. In fact being a bully requires some sophisticated social skills. – see below

I still contend that they lack the skills to assert their leadership talents in appropriate ways. Bullying is also not an expression of autonomy , being connected to your true inner self and self worth.  The bully is not  acting like an autonomous subject giving to the world but rather taking from others.

Po Bronson

'What about negative interactions between peers?  It appears that being too protective can also have a negative effect.  A policy for "zero tolerance" (toward bullying at school) found that it had a negative effect on children.  Although bullying should not be accepted as a normal part of childhood, implementing a policy for "zero tolerance" is not the solution.  This is because children are young and they make mistakes.  Inflicting severe, automatic responses for these mistakes erodes their trust in authority figures.  The children end up being more fearful of "accidentally" breaking the rules which increases their anxiety.

There is a complex relationship regarding bullying among children.  Ironically, most of the meanness, cruelty and torment are not inflicted by the "bad" kids or those most commonly labeled as bullies.  They are mostly inflicted by the popular, well-liked, and admired children.  Contrary to the idea that non-aggressive children were simply being "good" children, it was theorized that these children merely lacked the savvy and confidence to assert themselves as often. 

Aggressiveness is used to assert dominance to gain control and protect status.  It is not necessarily the mark of a child who lack social skills but the contrary - it often requires a child to be extremely sensitive to his/her peers.  To be able to attack in a subtle and strategic way, the child has to be socially intelligent - the child needs to know just the right buttons to push to drive his/her opponent crazy. 

So if the popular kids are more aggressive, then why are they admired and held in such high regard?  Because they are seen as being independent and older because of their willingness to defy authority. Children who always conform to adult expectations are often seen as wimps.  However, this doesn't make the popular children worse.  These children not only use antisocial tactics for controlling their peers, they are adept at pro-social skills.  They cleverly deal the right balance of power (kindness and cruelty) to achieve what they want.

.  Peer aggression alone is not an accurate measure of social development.  By lumping children of a similar age together, we are forcing them to socialize themselves.  We have created an environment that drives children to seek peer status and social ranking and this sometimes involves the use of aggression.'    Po Bronson

Child Obesity - Unconditional Parenting and SDT self determined theory

In an article on childhood obesity Dr Arya Sharma quotes Whitaker RC (2011). The childhood obesity epidemic: lessons for preventing socially determined health conditions. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

 He says that childhood obesity is a reflection on societal norms and values. The current way of living, consumerism-advertising, fast food and sweets diet ,  lack of community, and multiple stresses  contribute to obesity. Instead of following the conventional wisdom and target 'prevention' measures at kids when they are young, we need to change societal norms and values.

There is a lot of stress in the lives of kids. It is well known the connection between  stress and weight gain. The hormone cortisol converts muscle into fat to help us deal with stress, so strict dieting and exercise alone won't help if we do not change our  life styles  and reduce stress.

We also need to examine certain structures in society that contribute to consumerism and obesity.  The unlimited expose to advertising and unhealthy foods , especially sweets makes it very difficult for kids to make better and healthier choices .  Naomi Aldort says it is not about teaching kids to make better choices but rather creating an environment where kids can make choices.

'Choosing sugar is shaped by the addictive nature of sugar; it is not a free choice. When free to choose, the child knows what he needs. However, a child who “needs” candy or a movie is not free; the experience of candy or TV has created the illusion of a need. That which chooses is manipulated by the choice. The industry does a great job of manufacturing a sense of need.'

 In order to address the problem of obesity Dr Sharma quoting the  article  says ' both children and adults need to find purpose and meaning in life , which requires lifelong growth and development … autonomy , competence, mastery, self-acceptance, positive relations with others and transcending self through commitment or connection to something or someone.'

These words resonate with me , but I am afraid that one would need to read Alfie Kohn's Unconditional Parenting in order to put into practice  his suggestions.

AK in his UP book quotes Deci  and Ryan. Kids have the ability to make decisions in a way that meets their needs , they are equipped with a gyroscope of natural self regulation. When we control kids excessively – by using rewards and praise to get compliance- they start to become dependent on external sources of control. The gyroscope begins to wobble and they lose their ability to regulate themselves. Food consumption is a very literal example of this.

A parenting style that does not support ' autonomy ' will promote obesity in their kids, even if we provide   kids with restricted food choices and teach them about healthy eating. 

If we observe the eating patterns of kids over time, we notice how some days they hardly eat and then suddenly put away huge portions. If they eat something fattening, they will tend to eat less, or something   less caloric, afterward.  In terms of how much they eat then, children seem to have a remarkable capacity for self-regulation. Unless, that is , we try to run their bodies for them. 

In an experiment observing 77 kids between the ages of 2 and 4 and their parents, it was discovered that those parents who insisted their kids eat only during meal times rather than when they were hungry or who encouraged them to clean their plates, even when they obviously were not hungry, or who used food – especially deserts as a reward wound up with kids who lost their ability to regulate their caloric intake. Kids who had few opportunities to learn to control their own food intake came to stop trusting their bodies ' cues about when they were hungry . One result – many of them were already starting to get fat.    – Alfie Kohn  Unconditional Parenting

This claim – that people have lost the ability to self regulate -  to eat when they are hungry and stop when they are full – is the basis against traditional dieting. One does not learn to self regulate – eat when hungry and stop when full.

Another problem is that parents will bribe or 'incentivize '  kids in order to eat healthy food. In the Kefir drink experiment  ' good jobs '  and promises of reward  got kids to drink many glasses of this health drink .Some time later the kids were offered the drink without an incentive or praise  attached. Those kids who were previously praised for every time they downed a glass , now  did not touch the drink , those who received a reward had a limited interest , whereas those who did not receive any reward or praise gladly showed  interest in the drink and enjoyed themselves having the drink. The kids who did not receive any reward or verbal praise developed some intrinsic satisfaction and  motivation or a taste for the drink. Those kids who received rewards or praise initially drank a lot, but then lost interest in the drink.  – Alfie Kohn – Punished by Rewards

 In order to promote intrinsic motivation for healthy eating we should avoid any forms of reward, and  let kids participate not only in choosing food items but also help to prepare meals.

Libertarian Schooling and SDT

It is quite clear that traditional schools that focus on extrinsic motivators like grades to drive student learning ,  and rewards, consequences and punishments to deal with discipline problems and get compliance do not promote the autonomy, competence and relatedness needs of students. The transmission model or DI – direct instruction of teaching does not focus on students ' constructing ' their own knowledge and making meaning of their world as constructivist education does, ignoring the need for autonomy in learning.

The question is what about ' homeschoolers', ' un-schoolers,' non-traditional schools that have a libertarian bent.? Are they consistent with SDT principles?

Historically, education has been the responsibility of parents and kids were educated in a mainly informal way. Kids, from their early teens either worked in the home or with their parents or became apprentices and learned vocations while on the job. Kids that were academically gifted became scholars. More than 2000 years ago in Israel ,compulsory elementary schooling was introduced for kids from the ages of 6-7 in order to compensate for parents and address the more complex educational needs of kids. This means that schools are now partners with parents. Parents can focus more on informal learning.  See the kitchen as a classroom  -   http://tiny.cc/68mzr

Homeschooling is an alternative for a very small minority in the community. Homeschooling communities provide lots of opportunities for constructivist and cooperative learning and lots of social activities too. Some challenging kids do much better in this environment than in school.

Public education is the mainstream and people who are concerned with all children should not being doing their own thing , creating alternatives , but trying to become mainstream.

The alternatives have in common a distaste for traditional education , but what do they have in common?

Alfie Kohn finds a lot about ' libertarian ' education inadequate . I also think that  kids needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are not addressed  adequately.

Alfie Kohn talks about the '  Trouble of Pure Freedom '  and the focus on the individual kid's learning , and  the lack of community – cooperative learning, that characterize libertarian schooling.

The libertarian worldview sees adult involvement as an authoritarian  restriction of personal autonomy. Total autonomy is not developmentally appropriate . Kids need guidance and many of them need structure at the same time that they need the opportunity to learn how to make good decisions.   –

  http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/aero.htm

In an essay on student choice , and the need to sometimes limit student choice.

AK says   ……….. on closer examination, however, it seems clear that what must occasionally be restricted is not choice but individual choice. (It is an interesting reflection on our culture that we tend to see these as interchangeable.)-  to affirm the importance of community does not at all compromise the right to make decisions, per se, or the importance of involving everyone in a class or school in such a process. In fact, we might say that it is the integration of these two values, community and choice, that defines democracy

We see from the above that a libertarian approach comprises ' competence ' , autonomy ' and relatedness.

Competence is compromised by the lack of structure , teacher stimulation and guidance, cooperative learning, collaborative problem solving, social and moral learning within a community.

Autonomy is compromised by limiting choice – one has more possibilities within a community - . True autonomy is the ability  to be self determined within the context of a community and other peoples' choices.

Relatedness is compromised by the lack of cooperative learning within a caring community, and a lack of teacher involvement.

Allan

Comptence - Recognitions - SDT 2

In order to understand the role that recognitions play in meeting a kid's need for competence, and in general how we can promote competence in kids , I decided to share here Alfie Kohn on competence from his classic ' Punished by Rewards'.

When we give school kids ' recognitions' for their achievements we ought to boost interest in learning  tasks since 'recognitions ' offer evidence that a job has been done well, which makes the kid feel competent, which in turn is highly motivating .

According to the research however, 'recognitions' have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation. The problem is that they are judgmental and controlling. They are destructive of autonomy because not only control what kids can do but how well they have to do it.

 When we comment , compliment, or recognize what kids have done we need to keep in mind  2 principles .

 Self Determination

– do the comments help the kid feel a sense of control over his life, encouraging him to reflect and make his own judgments of what constitutes a good performance or are we attempting to manipulate his behavior by getting him to think about whether he has met our criteria?

Intrinsic motivation -

  Do our comments trigger kids to become more deeply involved in what he is doing – improving competence  or do they turn the task into something he does to win approval or prove his competence.?

The problem with feedback , -even when it is done right – informational in a neutral tone- , is that it can be interpreted as verbal praise when it is positive feedback ,or criticism when it is negative feedback. It is not easy to strip the information from its emotional weight and this is especially difficult for kids who are less intrinsically motivated. Instead of criticism, we can frame the interaction as cps – collaborative problem solving focusing on solving problems and finding ways to improve. Instead of kids using our positive feedback to experience a ' good feeling '  of perceived competence ( which in any case lasts only for 2 minutes ), we can help them regard feedback as information they can use in the process of learning.

The way to go is to bring kids in on the evaluation process that focuses on the learning process rather than achievement. They can participate in determining the criteria by which their learning can be assessed and have them do much of the actual assessment as is practical. Ak quotes Mark Lepper – that to a considerable one's perception of competence at an activity will depend on .. whether one has to succeed by his or her own standards or by someone else's.

It is important that kids get informational, non-evaluative feedback about their academic progress and classroom conduct but more important to motivation is to provide them opportunities to learn new skills, improve their existing skills and to acquire and demonstrate competence. Demonstrating competence is more about the process , proving competence is more about achievement , grades and awards. And of course the content – curriculum should try to be engaging, enjoyable, meaningful and relevant. Competence can be improved across many skills but having a variety of tasks that require different skills and provide the right amount of challenge. In this way we give kids an opportunity to feel a sense of accomplishment. That feeling of having worked at something and mastered it , of being competent, is an essential ingredient of successful learning. And, as one researcher notes ' classrooms that provide a variety of concrete activities for many learning ability levels do not need reward stickers or praise to encourage learning.

I prefer that schools focus on helping kids improve and learn new skills- acquiring a  growth mindset ( rather than be busy proving competence ) ,  be given opportunities to give expression to these skills in meaningful ways and participate in assessing the process, their contributions and work.

The questions of self worth, esteem and accomplishment are relevant when they are missing. When they exist, we don't think about them and if we do , they are just moments of good feeling. Maybe it is also about a confidence that a kid with a growth mindset has when attempting new tasks and challenges but still it is focusing on me as a  process.

The important thing to note according to AK is that  it's true that recognition isn't always extrinsic, it's also true that competence doesn't always require recognition (from others) and the two ideas shouldn't be conflated.  We run the risk of that conflation when we overlook the substantial difference between recognition from others and from oneself.

Allan