The first thing we always want to do as parents is jump in, right? It's like a deep rooted instinct propelling you forward. We don't even have to think, we just react. We are always there to save the day.
Except, sometimes, saving the day really isn't helping anything. Oh, when there's imminent danger or an injury, swooping in is important. I think that's why we have those instincts; we need to be able to not think and just react when we have to. Otherwise, we might panic. But, when it comes to most instances of parenting, sometimes we need to fight the instinct and just step back.
So often, we are so hell bent on protecting everything (our child, our floors, our walls, etc.) that we end up hindering our child's learning process. Children need to be allowed to explore and react. It may not always go well, but humans learn from experiences, both good and bad.
It's a scary thing; and there's also a fine line. How do we allow independence while keeping our children safe? And what's the benefit of independence? What's the benefit of letting children figure things out on their own?
The latter questions are easier to answer. Independence is crucial to learning, because humans learn through experience. A few humans can learn from others through rules or anecdotes, but most need hands-on experience of their own. And many need repetitive experiences in order to learn. So, if you want a child to learn, you have to give him the opportunity to explore...on his own.
And, so, how do we both keep our children safe while letting them explore. And again, we come to the moment of parental pause. It is a moment of vigilance because you are watching your child closely. It is a moment that many Montessori teachers have learned to capitalize upon. It is the moment of waiting and seeing.
When your child begins to interact with something that could go in the direction of problematic, you may wish to jump in before the problem. If that problem is imminent danger, severe injury, or death, then it of course makes sense to intervene before seeing what happens. However, if the possible problem may simply require a clean up, it's better to wait and see how things play out. If we are always jumping in to intervene, children can't learn to problem-solve or see consequences. Sometimes breaking something is a necessary conclusion for the child to make. Sometimes children need to try to work out a conflict themselves an learn to seek help for resolution rather than be given it before they ask.
With my little guy, I find myself waiting to see what he chooses to do with something before I take it away. Sometimes he chooses to use things appropriately, and other times it gets to a point where I have to take it away and distract him with something else. I am certain that letting him explore things and waiting to intervene teaches us both something. He learns new ways to interact with things and I learn about the choices and explorations he chooses to make. Taking a step back benefits both of us. And yes, sometimes I'm cleaning up a mess, or something breaks, or he gets soaked (he just loves the dog's water bowl), or I have to distract him when he's upset that I inevitably took something away. But, it's all just part of the process of learning. And, I think that's worth it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Right Shoes For Baby
I love fashion. I love shoes. Now show me some baby shoes, and I completely fall apart. But, when it comes to dressing my son's feet, I have to think about more than fashion.
During the early days of my son's life, I never put shoes on him. Baby's feet are just beginning to grow and shoes can restrict movement. Shoes are to protect the feet from the ground, so if you're child isn't touching the ground, it makes sense that he doesn't need shoes. Instead, we kept his little toes warm with socks and only when they felt cold to the touch.
Proper development of feet is just as important as any other aspect of a child's development. After a child is born, not all of the bones in his foot are fully developed. So, the same way that we protect the soft spot on the top of the head, we need to protect each little foot. In fact, the bones of the foot continue to develop for the first five years, so the issue of choosing shoes for developmental reasons rather than fashion remains important for a very long time.
Studies continue to show that the best thing for a child's foot development is being barefoot. Shoes inhibit how the foot moves, thus changing how the child moves. It's very much like a developmental domino effect. When a child is barefoot, his sense of touch and connection with what he walks on issues feedback that tells his body how to respond. This is how humans learn to walk, run, and move with proper coordination. While the shoe protects the foot from what's on the ground, it ultimately affects the information sent to the brain and can change a child's stride, gait, speed, and foot-fall. All of that affects his gross motor (large-muscle) coordination. So, it would make sense that while we want to protect the foot from damage, we want to protect the rest of the process as well.
Until the first steps are taken, children don't need traditional footwear. If their feet are cold, socks are all that's necessary. Loose socks are best, as any pressure on the toes is bad (this is important to remember about footie pajamas as well). When a child begins to crawl, barefoot is still the best route. My son used his toes to figure out how to crawl so it was essential that his foot not slip (the problem with socks). Unfortunately, as winter has set in, his feet get cold, so I decided to move him to soft soled shoes.
Soft soled shoes are essentially slippers for baby. Companies like Robeez (by Stride Rite) and Soft Star Shoes makes soft soled shoes that create the same environment as barefoot walking but keep the feet warm. For a little guy like mine who is pulling to stand, they work better than socks because they prevent slip. Unlike hard soled shoes, they allow the foot to move naturally.
Still, children whose feet are allowed to go barefoot and move naturally have lower incidences of many medical problems like flat feet. Even though soft soled shoes work at this stage, barefoot is always best. Really, at any stage. It's important to give children's feet that time to be free and natural during the day.
When walking starts, a thicker sole for on pavement is the next best step. In the house, barefoot or soft soled shoes are best. When looking at a thicker sole, it should be very flexible. The shoe should pretty much bend heel touching toe and bend at the center (not where the ball of the foot is). Arch support at this stage is bad, as are pointed toe or tapered toe shoes (broad toe is best). These guidelines hold true until a child is five years of age. But, at any age, being barefoot is still the best way to go.
As adults, we tend to get hung up on fashion or warmth when it comes to shoes. Or we think that shoes bring comfort. But, our feet and coordination have developed. For the developing child, the feedback and freedom of barefoot feet allow for the best development, and all those other factors are secondary. When it comes to choosing shoes, we should always be thinking about the shoe that supports the child's natural step rather than one that restricts or changes it.
During the early days of my son's life, I never put shoes on him. Baby's feet are just beginning to grow and shoes can restrict movement. Shoes are to protect the feet from the ground, so if you're child isn't touching the ground, it makes sense that he doesn't need shoes. Instead, we kept his little toes warm with socks and only when they felt cold to the touch.
Proper development of feet is just as important as any other aspect of a child's development. After a child is born, not all of the bones in his foot are fully developed. So, the same way that we protect the soft spot on the top of the head, we need to protect each little foot. In fact, the bones of the foot continue to develop for the first five years, so the issue of choosing shoes for developmental reasons rather than fashion remains important for a very long time.
Studies continue to show that the best thing for a child's foot development is being barefoot. Shoes inhibit how the foot moves, thus changing how the child moves. It's very much like a developmental domino effect. When a child is barefoot, his sense of touch and connection with what he walks on issues feedback that tells his body how to respond. This is how humans learn to walk, run, and move with proper coordination. While the shoe protects the foot from what's on the ground, it ultimately affects the information sent to the brain and can change a child's stride, gait, speed, and foot-fall. All of that affects his gross motor (large-muscle) coordination. So, it would make sense that while we want to protect the foot from damage, we want to protect the rest of the process as well.
Until the first steps are taken, children don't need traditional footwear. If their feet are cold, socks are all that's necessary. Loose socks are best, as any pressure on the toes is bad (this is important to remember about footie pajamas as well). When a child begins to crawl, barefoot is still the best route. My son used his toes to figure out how to crawl so it was essential that his foot not slip (the problem with socks). Unfortunately, as winter has set in, his feet get cold, so I decided to move him to soft soled shoes.
Soft soled shoes are essentially slippers for baby. Companies like Robeez (by Stride Rite) and Soft Star Shoes makes soft soled shoes that create the same environment as barefoot walking but keep the feet warm. For a little guy like mine who is pulling to stand, they work better than socks because they prevent slip. Unlike hard soled shoes, they allow the foot to move naturally.
Still, children whose feet are allowed to go barefoot and move naturally have lower incidences of many medical problems like flat feet. Even though soft soled shoes work at this stage, barefoot is always best. Really, at any stage. It's important to give children's feet that time to be free and natural during the day.
When walking starts, a thicker sole for on pavement is the next best step. In the house, barefoot or soft soled shoes are best. When looking at a thicker sole, it should be very flexible. The shoe should pretty much bend heel touching toe and bend at the center (not where the ball of the foot is). Arch support at this stage is bad, as are pointed toe or tapered toe shoes (broad toe is best). These guidelines hold true until a child is five years of age. But, at any age, being barefoot is still the best way to go.
As adults, we tend to get hung up on fashion or warmth when it comes to shoes. Or we think that shoes bring comfort. But, our feet and coordination have developed. For the developing child, the feedback and freedom of barefoot feet allow for the best development, and all those other factors are secondary. When it comes to choosing shoes, we should always be thinking about the shoe that supports the child's natural step rather than one that restricts or changes it.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Problem With "No!": Positive Communication
I want to start out by saying, this is not a post against the concept of "no." This post is about the word itself.
While there are many times that it is essential that we communicate to our children that they may not do or have something, there is an inherent problem with using the word "no" to make that communication. The problem with the word is that it doesn't have enough information; it's a set-up for failure. The problem with "no" is that it tells children what not to do instead of what they could do instead.
Imagine that you are an architect. You've been asked to design a building, so you do. Your client comes in, takes one look at it and says "no, that's not what I want; try again." He walks out the door. What information do you now have to do your job? Hardly any? All you know is that what you've chosen is wrong, but where do you go from there when the possibilities are endless?
It's the same with parenting. Consider yourself the client and your child the architect. You have to explain what it is that you want. But more that that, as you lay the boundaries of the world and society on your child (which is essential), you must help your child learn what he CAN do within those boundaries. If you don't tell him, he's gonna keep making it up, and he has no idea what's acceptable.
It's as simple as "please walk" instead of "don't run;" or "hold my hand in the street," instead of "don't run out into the street." Every negative can be turned into a positive if you just think about what you want your child to do instead of what you don't want him to do. Children often choose unacceptable behaviors because they just can't think of what to do instead. Or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. Repetition of the rules is far more effective than yelling negatives at your child.
The average one year old hears the word "no" more than 400 times a day. That's a lot of time that could be spent trying to help engage the child in something constructive. If your child has gotten to a place where you are now saying "no," then consider how he got there. If he's an infant, should you have been watching him and redirected him before he got there? Is it something you can simply redirect? If it's an older child, are you in a scenario where it might have helped to remind her of the rules before you got to this point? What can you ask her to do instead?
They key to this mindset is: what can you help your child figure out to do instead? When my son wants to go in the dog's water bowl, I put it on top of the counter before he gets it and give him something else to do (sometimes I put water in a different bowl he can play with). When he's got a dirty diaper and he wants to reach his hands down while I'm changing him, i move his hands up and say "hands up." Another example is if your child is running around the grocery store, you can enlist him to put the groceries in the cart or have him push the cart instead. Children need to be occupied, so take a role in helping your child occupy himself.
It's not that parents can never say "no." The reality is, we all get kind of hardwired that way. I try not to say it, but it just flies out of my mouth. So, now, instead of seeing it as a disciplinary tactic, I see it as a reminder to myself that I need to be parenting; I need to occupy my child, interact with my child, or teach my child something. For me, "no" is a reminder that the world is a big place and I've gotta help my little guy figure out what he CAN do.
While there are many times that it is essential that we communicate to our children that they may not do or have something, there is an inherent problem with using the word "no" to make that communication. The problem with the word is that it doesn't have enough information; it's a set-up for failure. The problem with "no" is that it tells children what not to do instead of what they could do instead.
Imagine that you are an architect. You've been asked to design a building, so you do. Your client comes in, takes one look at it and says "no, that's not what I want; try again." He walks out the door. What information do you now have to do your job? Hardly any? All you know is that what you've chosen is wrong, but where do you go from there when the possibilities are endless?
It's the same with parenting. Consider yourself the client and your child the architect. You have to explain what it is that you want. But more that that, as you lay the boundaries of the world and society on your child (which is essential), you must help your child learn what he CAN do within those boundaries. If you don't tell him, he's gonna keep making it up, and he has no idea what's acceptable.
It's as simple as "please walk" instead of "don't run;" or "hold my hand in the street," instead of "don't run out into the street." Every negative can be turned into a positive if you just think about what you want your child to do instead of what you don't want him to do. Children often choose unacceptable behaviors because they just can't think of what to do instead. Or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. Repetition of the rules is far more effective than yelling negatives at your child.
The average one year old hears the word "no" more than 400 times a day. That's a lot of time that could be spent trying to help engage the child in something constructive. If your child has gotten to a place where you are now saying "no," then consider how he got there. If he's an infant, should you have been watching him and redirected him before he got there? Is it something you can simply redirect? If it's an older child, are you in a scenario where it might have helped to remind her of the rules before you got to this point? What can you ask her to do instead?
They key to this mindset is: what can you help your child figure out to do instead? When my son wants to go in the dog's water bowl, I put it on top of the counter before he gets it and give him something else to do (sometimes I put water in a different bowl he can play with). When he's got a dirty diaper and he wants to reach his hands down while I'm changing him, i move his hands up and say "hands up." Another example is if your child is running around the grocery store, you can enlist him to put the groceries in the cart or have him push the cart instead. Children need to be occupied, so take a role in helping your child occupy himself.
It's not that parents can never say "no." The reality is, we all get kind of hardwired that way. I try not to say it, but it just flies out of my mouth. So, now, instead of seeing it as a disciplinary tactic, I see it as a reminder to myself that I need to be parenting; I need to occupy my child, interact with my child, or teach my child something. For me, "no" is a reminder that the world is a big place and I've gotta help my little guy figure out what he CAN do.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Thank You Baby-Led Weaning: An Update
In my previous post, Starting Solids, I admit that I had my concerns with Baby-Led Weaning when we started. Specifically, I was terrified that trial and error could end up in choking. Every time my little guy gagged, my husband and I look terrified.
Now, as my son is 8 1/2 months old, I'm so glad we stuck it out; my fears are gone. I realized this today when I watched my son eat a piece of sweet potato. Holding large enough of a slice to hold in his hand and still have enough sticking out of his hand to bite on, he leaned forward and took a small bite. Success, I thought, he's getting it!
Thinking back on the past few weeks of eating, he seems to have figured many thing out. He can eat chicken and turkey in small bites, even though he's only just now getting his first tooth. He's learned to bite down with his gums and separate off a piece. Those things he needs help getting pieces off, we let him try chewing on it but then break off pieces and feed them to him with our fingers (small bits of pork or fish). He hasn't mastered the pincer grip, so he still needs assistance food like fish that can't be held in large pieces.
He still gags, though. I'm seeing that it's part of the learning process. I figure it's better he gags now while his gag reflex is further up in his mouth. It's still scary, but I know that he's learning and it reminds me to stay vigilant. I'll admit, if I seem him pull off too big a piece, I've been known to go fish it out, but now that he understands chewing, there's far less of that.
A lot of this process is about exploration. Since his main diet is breastfeeding, I never worry about how much he eats. I focus on variety and I try to incorporate foods with iron since I've chosen not to given him a supplement. Sometimes (many times), he just smears the food around or tosses it to the dog. But, sometimes, he discovers something he loves. Yes to turkey. No to mango. I respect his desire to try as much as I respect when he pushes something away and says no.
Onward with the exploration as we move towards independence! Thank you baby-led weaning for making food much less complicated.
Now, as my son is 8 1/2 months old, I'm so glad we stuck it out; my fears are gone. I realized this today when I watched my son eat a piece of sweet potato. Holding large enough of a slice to hold in his hand and still have enough sticking out of his hand to bite on, he leaned forward and took a small bite. Success, I thought, he's getting it!
Thinking back on the past few weeks of eating, he seems to have figured many thing out. He can eat chicken and turkey in small bites, even though he's only just now getting his first tooth. He's learned to bite down with his gums and separate off a piece. Those things he needs help getting pieces off, we let him try chewing on it but then break off pieces and feed them to him with our fingers (small bits of pork or fish). He hasn't mastered the pincer grip, so he still needs assistance food like fish that can't be held in large pieces.
He still gags, though. I'm seeing that it's part of the learning process. I figure it's better he gags now while his gag reflex is further up in his mouth. It's still scary, but I know that he's learning and it reminds me to stay vigilant. I'll admit, if I seem him pull off too big a piece, I've been known to go fish it out, but now that he understands chewing, there's far less of that.
A lot of this process is about exploration. Since his main diet is breastfeeding, I never worry about how much he eats. I focus on variety and I try to incorporate foods with iron since I've chosen not to given him a supplement. Sometimes (many times), he just smears the food around or tosses it to the dog. But, sometimes, he discovers something he loves. Yes to turkey. No to mango. I respect his desire to try as much as I respect when he pushes something away and says no.
Onward with the exploration as we move towards independence! Thank you baby-led weaning for making food much less complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)