You've heard someone say it. You know someone who has said it. You've probably said it yourself. I know, once upon a time, I did.
You need to say you're sorry.
Those words are constantly being spouted to young children by every adult around them. No matter what unacceptable move they make, they are told to say that they are sorry. They are told this from the moment they can form the word and long before they will ever be able to understand it. They are told to say it long before they are capable of meaning it. So, what is it that we claim we are teaching children when we force them to say it?
I've heard many answers for this. Most people seem to believe that it's a form of politeness; like please and thank you, it needs to be practiced. There seems to be a generally held belief that the way we teach the concept of sorry is through forcing the words and somehow we inevitably believe the concept will follow. I want to go on record here. I think this is complete nonsense.
Let's look at the word. To feel sorry means to feel regret, sympathy, pity, compunction (remorse for wrongdoing), or grieved. Now, look at those five words. Do any of us honestly believe that the young child is capable of understanding any of those words? So, how can we possibly believe that they can understand the concept of sorry? And, so, why do we keep making them say it???
You may ask at this point, what is the harm in their saying it? How else do we teach them to say sorry when they have done something unacceptable or hurtful? My answer is another question: what are we teaching them by making them say it? We are teaching them that the single utterance of a word undoes anything that they could have done. All we are telling them is that when you hurt someone or break a rule, you simply utter a word and it all goes away. All we are saying is that you do not have to right a wrong, you just have to say a word.
Using a word like sorry before you can mean it does not mean that you learn to mean it. You do not learn to empathize by continuously saying a word empty of meaning and having everything be okay. In fact, since children are not born with empathy, we are doing them a huge disservice. In the moment that we have the opportunity to teach them about the concept of empathy and remorse, we instead choose to give them a word that makes everything go away with no effort on their part. We are giving them a Get Out Of Jail Free card. And they aren't learning anything.
Instead of telling a child to say sorry, we should be focusing on showing him what has happened and that it is his responsibility to make amends. Saying sorry is not how we do that. Understanding that someone is now hurt and doing something to make them feel better is how we do that. If I punch someone and tell him sorry, does it take away his pain? No, it makes no difference whether or not I utter the word, unless I am truly expressing remorse. And I promise you, the person I punched is going to expect a lot more from me in order to express that.
It is our job to teach our children empathy, and if we do not do it consciously, we can easily end up with adults who lack empathy. I know everyone out there has met one of those adults and it is never a good thing. So don't brush away the lesson by teaching them to parrot a word. Instead, help them through the process. Ask them to look at what they have done and assess how the other person is feeling. Ask them how they feel about what they have done and how the other person is feeling. Explain to your child that now that he has hurt someone (you or anyone else), it is his responsibility to make that person feel better. Ask him what he thinks he might do to make the person feel better or direct him to ask the person what would make him feel better. Then explain to your child that he must follow through with that. It could be getting the person a glass of water, giving the person a hug, telling the person you will not do it again. These actions are what teach us to be aware of another person's feelings and how we learn to make real reparations for our wrong doings. This is how we learn empathy.
And how will your child learn the word "sorry?" Not by his own usage, but by yours. If we want our children to learn what sorry means and ultimately use the terminology, then we need to use it when we mean it. We need to make our own reparations (to them and to others) and they will learn to follow suit. It's just like please and thank you. You want them to use it, then use it yourself. You don't have to make them say "sorry," they'll figure out when it's used and what it's used for. What you have to do is teach them how to feel sorry.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
There Are No Bad Babies (Or Children)
I've been hearing a statement a lot lately that has been driving me nuts: "Is he a good baby?" I smile and hide my contempt at the idea by responding by asking what the person means. Usually it is a question about how he sleeps or whether or not he's happy. When my son is smiling, people usually tell me what a good baby he is.
So here's MY question. What is a bad baby? For that matter, what is a bad child? Why do we do such a disservice to children by qualifying their actions as good or bad? Young children don't have the moral ability to understand the difference between good and bad. All they can do is understand the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior by interpreting an adult's reaction, and so their behavior is largely dependent upon the responses of their primary caregivers. Their actions are neither good nor bad, they just are. It's then up to the adults to help guide those behaviors.
Babies, on the other hand, are not even capable of differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable. They simply follow their instincts; they just act (or not act). In Montessori, we call this the unconscious absorbent mind, and the child's mind will continue in this state until about three years old. During this stage, the mind is merely programmed to follow its own instincts, to almost absentmindedly explore the world and process whatever it it interacts with. The child does not have the will to control these actions, nor the consciousness to direct them. They are following whims. And those whims are responsible for the child's amazing ability to learn. They learn how to walk, talk, move, and categorize the world in the most fascinating way. And this method is under no one's control. The only person who has any control is the adult who controls the environment in which the child interacts. And even then, they cannot truly control the way the child impulsively experiences it. It is this quality of the infant human's mind that allows for the foundation of the amazing brains that make humans so unique as a species.
What's even more interesting (and frustrating) to me, is the idea that qualities of a child such as sleep or mood can be considered good or bad. Sleep is a result of a child's biological needs and responses, as is mood. Usually a child having a hard time with either one of these is a result of a biological need or medical concern. It has nothing to do with the "goodness" of the child.
I agree that behaviors, impulses, and biological needs of a child can be more difficult than easy to deal with, but that response says more about the adult than the child really. Nothing about raising a child is always easy or always difficult; every child is unique and has a combination of easy and difficult behaviors. But, difficult is not bad. And easy is not good. I wish that we would take this words out of our vocabulary when we interact with children. It is not fair for us to qualify who they are before they even had the chance to create that person. It's unfair that from the very beginning we are judging children on a scale that has more to do with our own desires for less work and less changes in our own lives. And it's unfair to a mother or father who are working so hard to help their child through any and all behaviors to make them think that there is something wrong with the child who needs extra help or attention. Children are who they are. And that is not a bad thing. They might need extra help or a little more patience. They might need medical intervention or a change in diet. They might need a little more understanding or a little more attention. A child who's having a hard time or giving a hard time is a child who just needs more assistance.
In my classroom, we write the word bad on pieces of paper and everyone gets one. And then we rip it up and throw it in the trash. We don't need the word bad, because children are not bad. Every one of them is amazing and wonderful. Sometimes they make choices that are unacceptable, or they have behaviors that are difficult. But, that just means they need more help, more attention, or more love. There are NO bad children. So please, throw the word "bad" away.
So here's MY question. What is a bad baby? For that matter, what is a bad child? Why do we do such a disservice to children by qualifying their actions as good or bad? Young children don't have the moral ability to understand the difference between good and bad. All they can do is understand the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior by interpreting an adult's reaction, and so their behavior is largely dependent upon the responses of their primary caregivers. Their actions are neither good nor bad, they just are. It's then up to the adults to help guide those behaviors.
Babies, on the other hand, are not even capable of differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable. They simply follow their instincts; they just act (or not act). In Montessori, we call this the unconscious absorbent mind, and the child's mind will continue in this state until about three years old. During this stage, the mind is merely programmed to follow its own instincts, to almost absentmindedly explore the world and process whatever it it interacts with. The child does not have the will to control these actions, nor the consciousness to direct them. They are following whims. And those whims are responsible for the child's amazing ability to learn. They learn how to walk, talk, move, and categorize the world in the most fascinating way. And this method is under no one's control. The only person who has any control is the adult who controls the environment in which the child interacts. And even then, they cannot truly control the way the child impulsively experiences it. It is this quality of the infant human's mind that allows for the foundation of the amazing brains that make humans so unique as a species.
What's even more interesting (and frustrating) to me, is the idea that qualities of a child such as sleep or mood can be considered good or bad. Sleep is a result of a child's biological needs and responses, as is mood. Usually a child having a hard time with either one of these is a result of a biological need or medical concern. It has nothing to do with the "goodness" of the child.
I agree that behaviors, impulses, and biological needs of a child can be more difficult than easy to deal with, but that response says more about the adult than the child really. Nothing about raising a child is always easy or always difficult; every child is unique and has a combination of easy and difficult behaviors. But, difficult is not bad. And easy is not good. I wish that we would take this words out of our vocabulary when we interact with children. It is not fair for us to qualify who they are before they even had the chance to create that person. It's unfair that from the very beginning we are judging children on a scale that has more to do with our own desires for less work and less changes in our own lives. And it's unfair to a mother or father who are working so hard to help their child through any and all behaviors to make them think that there is something wrong with the child who needs extra help or attention. Children are who they are. And that is not a bad thing. They might need extra help or a little more patience. They might need medical intervention or a change in diet. They might need a little more understanding or a little more attention. A child who's having a hard time or giving a hard time is a child who just needs more assistance.
In my classroom, we write the word bad on pieces of paper and everyone gets one. And then we rip it up and throw it in the trash. We don't need the word bad, because children are not bad. Every one of them is amazing and wonderful. Sometimes they make choices that are unacceptable, or they have behaviors that are difficult. But, that just means they need more help, more attention, or more love. There are NO bad children. So please, throw the word "bad" away.
Bed-Sharing: I'm Not On The Defensive Anymore
MY SON SLEEPS IN MY BED!
Yes, I said it. Loud and proud, I'm saying it. And, the truth is, I'm tired of feeling like I need to defend it. Why should my choice as a parent be seen as negative? What's wrong with bed-sharing (also known as co-sleeping)?!
Let me start by telling you what prompted this little (?) outburst of mine. I was on a walk with my ten month old son and decided to take the circuit that goes past the school where I used to teach. I wanted to visit my former coworkers and students. So when we pulled up, we got plenty of excitement about how fast my son is growing and all sorts of questions. Somehow it came up that my son sleeps with us. One of the responses: "oh, you better nip that in the bud!"
My instant emotional response was to become irate, but I blew past it. And, I'm glad I did, because the two other teachers on the playground (NOT American by birth or culture, but from Eastern countries) had both bed-shared (one still does with her four year old). Quickly the conversation turned to praise for the bond and security felt by children AND parents who bed share.
So, why, in America, is it so commonplace to think that bed sharing is not only terrible, but something you can openly critique about another parent's choices? Why is my statement about bed sharing met with the same response as if I had announced that my son bites others (or something equally inappropriate)? I don't really have the answer, but my guess is that it's related to certain Victorian attitudes about children that continue to be pervasive in our society (thanks for the idea, Mom!). So let's put our fears and preconceptions aside and really think about bed sharing for a moment.
Bed sharing isn't anything new. It was done in most parts of the world, including our own, up until the nineteenth century shift to the crib. Today, despite it's negative perception in the US, it's a common place practice in most parts of the world (particularly Asia and Africa). And studies have shown that it's often done in the US at some point (more often that not), it's just not talked about. It's becoming more popular as more parents come out of the bed-sharing "closet."
Additionally, studies have found no I'll effects to children resulting from bed sharing. It affects neither their intellectual development nor their behavior. The studies have shown no difference between children who have shared sleep with parents and children who haven't in these areas.
Then, why is the American Academy of Pediatrics against bed-sharing under the age of one? I think this decision on their part is a logical one when you considered that policy is usually made when considering the least responsible person. You don't really want to advocate for something that could go horribly wrong when not done right. Many parents use sleep aids, have high beds, or are overly sound sleepers. Bed sharing can be unsafe in these conditions. When facing that reality, the institution doesn't want to support something they can't guarantee all parents will do right. Most pediatricians, however, will support it on a case by case basis. Are you being safe? Do you have preventative methods for keeping baby from falling out of bed? Do you sleep lightly enough so that you don't roll on baby? Do you refrain from sleep aids or substances that lower your cognition at night (like alcohol)? These questions can determine whether safe bed-sharing is being practiced under age one. Unless you can do it safely, you shouldn't do it at all. But, if you are safe and conscious in your decision (there's a wealth of information on the Internet and on Dr. Sears' website on how to share a bed safely), the benefits can be great.
Before I say anything about bed sharing benefits, I want to make it clear that I'm not going from the anti-bedsharing stance to the opposite extreme; I'm not saying everyone should bed share. I don't believe there are one-size fits all options for any aspect of parenting or living, for that matter. It may not work for every parent or every child, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think what matters for families is that parents do what works for both themselves and their child, and the options vary greatly.
I do believe that bed sharing is a positive option for all parents. If it works for you, you shouldn't have to feel ashamed. You shouldn't have to feel like you are doing anything wrong. Because, the truth is, there isn't anything wrong with it; you're not going to mess up your kids. And you just maybe getting something wonderful out of it too.
So, what's so great about bed sharing? For starters, it is an incredible time to bond with your child. It can be especially beneficial if you work all day and your child is away from you; it can really extend the amount of time you have to be close to your child. For me, sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and it's wonderful to just watch my son sleep. And when he reaches out for me to stroke my face and check that I'm there before falling back to sleep, I feel an overwhelming sense of love. It's wonderful.
Bed sharing can also ease a parent's fears. For me, I have a hard time with the idea of my son sleeping away from me at his age. Especially when he was younger; the risk of SIDS was just too much for me to be comfortable with. Even now, I sleep better just knowing he's safe. There are arguments that bed sharing increases the risk for SIDS but I only think that can be related to unsafe bed sharing. In fact, Dr. Sears actually hypothesizes (and research is being done to look into this) that SIDS risk is actually reduced by safe bed sharing. His own studies, while not thorough enough to be considered conclusive, found that the babies he studied had more regular and safer breathing patterns when mom and baby slept together.
Bed sharing can mean healthy babies. When mom and baby sleep together, breastfeeding is easier to do more frequently at night without anyone really having to wake much. Babies who have this extra milk often thrive physically which affects them positively both emotionally and intellectually. Additionally, if baby sleeps better in this manner, then baby sleeps more, and sleep is extremely beneficial to health.
Some children sleep better next to you. This is ultimately the reason that my husband and I chose bed-sharing. It was not the choice we originally intended (best laid plans, right?). Some children sleep fine on their own from the start (maybe they fuss a few minutes but they fall asleep), and if yours does, you've probably never had to even consider this. But our son does not sleep well on his own and he does not fuss gently but rather begins to scream and panic. We started with him on his own but near us. He did better when he was swaddled, but when that no longer worked for him, nothing was going to help him sleep. He was waking up every 20-45 minutes. I thought I was going to go insane. Being adamantly against sleep training, I had no idea what to do and I was so upset every time he woke. My husband finally told me to bring him in bed (which we knew worked from brief times I brought him in during the mornings), because we needed me to get some sleep. It worked. In the end, I know that I sleep better for it, and a lot of mothers have reported the same.
Many people might argue that a child needs to learn to sleep alone, and they need to do it early. Sleep trainers will advocate letting a child stress and cry themselves to sleep (and just so you know, this won't train every kid) just to make this point. But me, I think it's detrimental and fundamentally hypocritical. How many parents force their child to sleep alone and then return to their own beds where they sleep with a spouse?! We all become adults who seek that nighttime comfort from each other. So why should there be something wrong with a child who wants the same thing? Children are different, and if your child has the kind of temperament that requires this level of closeness, I don't think that's a negative. It may make him different. In our case, I love that my son is different. And I'd rather respect that than fight to make him like everyone else.
With all these great advantages, there are some disadvantages, although not always the ones people think. I don't believe that it's a disadvantage to intimacy, because there are plenty of other rooms to be intimate in. What I do think can be a disadvantage for some parents is that during that first year or so, your child needs YOU at night. It's harder to just get a babysitter at night or leave your child for a week. So, it can depend on you and what you want as a parent. For me, giving up the nightlife has been little of an issue; I'll get it back (sort of) one day. And I'm not all that comfortable with leaving him yet anyway. My husband and I have decided to make "date night" a long Sunday brunch at this restaurant we love, and that's all we really need!
So, in the end, I'm not ashamed that bed sharing was the route we ended up taking. I remain a firm believer in "follow the child." And it's clear, this is what my child needs.
I won't sit in the bed sharing closet; I'm out and I'm proud. Who's with me?
Yes, I said it. Loud and proud, I'm saying it. And, the truth is, I'm tired of feeling like I need to defend it. Why should my choice as a parent be seen as negative? What's wrong with bed-sharing (also known as co-sleeping)?!
Let me start by telling you what prompted this little (?) outburst of mine. I was on a walk with my ten month old son and decided to take the circuit that goes past the school where I used to teach. I wanted to visit my former coworkers and students. So when we pulled up, we got plenty of excitement about how fast my son is growing and all sorts of questions. Somehow it came up that my son sleeps with us. One of the responses: "oh, you better nip that in the bud!"
My instant emotional response was to become irate, but I blew past it. And, I'm glad I did, because the two other teachers on the playground (NOT American by birth or culture, but from Eastern countries) had both bed-shared (one still does with her four year old). Quickly the conversation turned to praise for the bond and security felt by children AND parents who bed share.
So, why, in America, is it so commonplace to think that bed sharing is not only terrible, but something you can openly critique about another parent's choices? Why is my statement about bed sharing met with the same response as if I had announced that my son bites others (or something equally inappropriate)? I don't really have the answer, but my guess is that it's related to certain Victorian attitudes about children that continue to be pervasive in our society (thanks for the idea, Mom!). So let's put our fears and preconceptions aside and really think about bed sharing for a moment.
Bed sharing isn't anything new. It was done in most parts of the world, including our own, up until the nineteenth century shift to the crib. Today, despite it's negative perception in the US, it's a common place practice in most parts of the world (particularly Asia and Africa). And studies have shown that it's often done in the US at some point (more often that not), it's just not talked about. It's becoming more popular as more parents come out of the bed-sharing "closet."
Additionally, studies have found no I'll effects to children resulting from bed sharing. It affects neither their intellectual development nor their behavior. The studies have shown no difference between children who have shared sleep with parents and children who haven't in these areas.
Then, why is the American Academy of Pediatrics against bed-sharing under the age of one? I think this decision on their part is a logical one when you considered that policy is usually made when considering the least responsible person. You don't really want to advocate for something that could go horribly wrong when not done right. Many parents use sleep aids, have high beds, or are overly sound sleepers. Bed sharing can be unsafe in these conditions. When facing that reality, the institution doesn't want to support something they can't guarantee all parents will do right. Most pediatricians, however, will support it on a case by case basis. Are you being safe? Do you have preventative methods for keeping baby from falling out of bed? Do you sleep lightly enough so that you don't roll on baby? Do you refrain from sleep aids or substances that lower your cognition at night (like alcohol)? These questions can determine whether safe bed-sharing is being practiced under age one. Unless you can do it safely, you shouldn't do it at all. But, if you are safe and conscious in your decision (there's a wealth of information on the Internet and on Dr. Sears' website on how to share a bed safely), the benefits can be great.
Before I say anything about bed sharing benefits, I want to make it clear that I'm not going from the anti-bedsharing stance to the opposite extreme; I'm not saying everyone should bed share. I don't believe there are one-size fits all options for any aspect of parenting or living, for that matter. It may not work for every parent or every child, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think what matters for families is that parents do what works for both themselves and their child, and the options vary greatly.
I do believe that bed sharing is a positive option for all parents. If it works for you, you shouldn't have to feel ashamed. You shouldn't have to feel like you are doing anything wrong. Because, the truth is, there isn't anything wrong with it; you're not going to mess up your kids. And you just maybe getting something wonderful out of it too.
So, what's so great about bed sharing? For starters, it is an incredible time to bond with your child. It can be especially beneficial if you work all day and your child is away from you; it can really extend the amount of time you have to be close to your child. For me, sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and it's wonderful to just watch my son sleep. And when he reaches out for me to stroke my face and check that I'm there before falling back to sleep, I feel an overwhelming sense of love. It's wonderful.
Bed sharing can also ease a parent's fears. For me, I have a hard time with the idea of my son sleeping away from me at his age. Especially when he was younger; the risk of SIDS was just too much for me to be comfortable with. Even now, I sleep better just knowing he's safe. There are arguments that bed sharing increases the risk for SIDS but I only think that can be related to unsafe bed sharing. In fact, Dr. Sears actually hypothesizes (and research is being done to look into this) that SIDS risk is actually reduced by safe bed sharing. His own studies, while not thorough enough to be considered conclusive, found that the babies he studied had more regular and safer breathing patterns when mom and baby slept together.
Bed sharing can mean healthy babies. When mom and baby sleep together, breastfeeding is easier to do more frequently at night without anyone really having to wake much. Babies who have this extra milk often thrive physically which affects them positively both emotionally and intellectually. Additionally, if baby sleeps better in this manner, then baby sleeps more, and sleep is extremely beneficial to health.
Some children sleep better next to you. This is ultimately the reason that my husband and I chose bed-sharing. It was not the choice we originally intended (best laid plans, right?). Some children sleep fine on their own from the start (maybe they fuss a few minutes but they fall asleep), and if yours does, you've probably never had to even consider this. But our son does not sleep well on his own and he does not fuss gently but rather begins to scream and panic. We started with him on his own but near us. He did better when he was swaddled, but when that no longer worked for him, nothing was going to help him sleep. He was waking up every 20-45 minutes. I thought I was going to go insane. Being adamantly against sleep training, I had no idea what to do and I was so upset every time he woke. My husband finally told me to bring him in bed (which we knew worked from brief times I brought him in during the mornings), because we needed me to get some sleep. It worked. In the end, I know that I sleep better for it, and a lot of mothers have reported the same.
Many people might argue that a child needs to learn to sleep alone, and they need to do it early. Sleep trainers will advocate letting a child stress and cry themselves to sleep (and just so you know, this won't train every kid) just to make this point. But me, I think it's detrimental and fundamentally hypocritical. How many parents force their child to sleep alone and then return to their own beds where they sleep with a spouse?! We all become adults who seek that nighttime comfort from each other. So why should there be something wrong with a child who wants the same thing? Children are different, and if your child has the kind of temperament that requires this level of closeness, I don't think that's a negative. It may make him different. In our case, I love that my son is different. And I'd rather respect that than fight to make him like everyone else.
With all these great advantages, there are some disadvantages, although not always the ones people think. I don't believe that it's a disadvantage to intimacy, because there are plenty of other rooms to be intimate in. What I do think can be a disadvantage for some parents is that during that first year or so, your child needs YOU at night. It's harder to just get a babysitter at night or leave your child for a week. So, it can depend on you and what you want as a parent. For me, giving up the nightlife has been little of an issue; I'll get it back (sort of) one day. And I'm not all that comfortable with leaving him yet anyway. My husband and I have decided to make "date night" a long Sunday brunch at this restaurant we love, and that's all we really need!
So, in the end, I'm not ashamed that bed sharing was the route we ended up taking. I remain a firm believer in "follow the child." And it's clear, this is what my child needs.
I won't sit in the bed sharing closet; I'm out and I'm proud. Who's with me?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Do Newborns Have Their Own Language?!
This video is a segment Oprah aired about a woman named Priscilla Dunstan who claims to have discovered a language found in all newborns. This theory is now referred to as Dunstan Baby Language.
Dunstan, having special hearing abilities from birth, discovered that her son made very distinct sounds every time he had a certain need. The sounds were made before a full cry (which was only reached when the need was not understood or responded too). She soon began to realize other babies were making these sounds. Not their own sounds, but the exact same ones. She identified five "words" for five different needs: hunger (neh), discomfort/changing (heh), sleepiness (owh), gas pain (eairh), and burping (eh).
Dunstan has her own website where she offers products (somewhere between $50 and $70) and classes that help parents respond to these "words." I'm not sure about the research on this; most of it appears to have been her own, although her site states that she's been working with different universities. A thorough Internet search doesn't find any research besides her own out there. Some parents give it rave reviews and others claim their child isn't making different sounds. According to news articles they were supposed to do clinical trials with Brown University but chose to work on creating and marketing a product instead. With regard to lack of outside research, it seems similar to Dr. Karp's Happiest Baby on the Block. Again, some swear by it while others claim it doesn't help at all. Is the science invalid or are some parents doing it wrong? Hard to say. Happiest Baby taught me a few things that really helped calm my son.
I think Dunstan's idea of it is definitely interesting and thought-provoking. It speaks to the idea that babies seem to understand each other. The language, she says, only applies to newborns, though, and children seem to lose the words after three months. She mentions in the video that some children might retain the words if their needs are consistently met when they make the sound. I only wish I'd learned this sooner so I could have listened for it with my son. Maybe the next one?!
Anyone have any experiences with this?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Montessori and Attachment Parenting: Can They Co-Exist
As part of my consulting job for a Montessori school in the area, I run teacher training workshops in which we analyze school issues by looking at Dr. Montessori's written works and philosophically analyzing the topics. As I did an Internet search relating Dr. Montessori and sleep, I came across an interesting blog post on MariaMontessori.com about Montessori philosophy and Attachment Parenting philosophy. The blogger questioned if the two philosophies can co-exist. Was Dr. Montessori's quest for a child's independence in conflict with Attachment Parenting's promotion of the parent-child bond? As I contemplated her questions, I found myself thinking, no, I don't believe this conflict exists. As a Montessori teacher and mother who very much follows much of AP's principles, I find that the two coexist quite nicely.
It's easy to see why someone would see a conflict arising, however. Montessorians are tirelessly spouting the need for a child's independence. Much of what Dr. Montessori wrote is about this very principle. But, as often happens when people begin to interpret the good doctor, that independence lies within the context of a much greater philosophy and broader belief system about children. I believe that if you were to boil down this very complex philosophy into a phrase, it would not be "independence." It would be "follow the child."
Dr. Montessori's quest for the child's independence was not based on a belief that children should be made to do everything by themselves. Instead, it was a very unique statement in a century when children were thought to be blank slates, having no knowledge or ability, and only by pouring knowledge into them might they learn anything. The method of education at the time was to sit them at desks and have them learn everything from a teacher's lectures. Sound familiar? The upper class was often pampering their children by doing everything for them. Children's behaviors were met with punishment and children were easily labeled good or bad. Again, sound familiar?
What she said was revolutionary, although it was built on the works of social and educational scientists before her (Itard, Piaget, Rousseau, etc.). She challenged the traditional presumptions of children and said, instead, that children are innately born to learn. Instead of trying to control them or force them through this process using the adult's desires, adults should guide them through their own process, following their own innate desires. She found that what people saw as negative behaviors (disobedience) and positive behaviors (obedience) were not the true nature of the child. Instead, the child simply wants to learn, explore, and build himself into someone. She wrote "education is a natural process carried out by the child and is not acquired by listening to words but by experiences in the environment.” It is that natural process and innate drive that is the gift of being a human and not just an animal. It is when adults try to direct it that they muck it up.
Enter independence. What Dr. Montessori said about independence is more of a statement about their capabilities. She said "never help a child with a task at which he feels he can succeed." Looking at her words, you can see the focus is on the child; how the child feels about his abilities. Dr. Montessori was telling us to follow the child's lead. If he wants to learn how to do something or shows an interest in something, let us help him get there. Let us help him learn to do things so that he might find the joy in his success and his abilities. Let us assist him when he cannot, all the while demonstrating how to do it, and back off when he can. Let us let him TRY.
Going back to the bloggers question, I found that many of her questions arose because of the book Montessori From The Start. This is not a book written by Dr. Montessori but instead by Paula Polk Lillard and Lynn Lillard Jessen. This book is their interpretation of Montessori for the infant. The reality is, Dr. Montessori did not write books about the infancy period and only makes occasional references to this age. This age group was not in her schools because children at this age need to be with their mothers. So, this book is a single interpretation for Montessori and not necessarily her own guidelines. In my opinion, Lillard and Jessen do a great job talking about the floor bed and the way to set up a nursery, much of which I used when setting up a nursery and my son's floor bed. On the other hand, much of what else they wrote, I find is of their own opinion, and not necessarily the Montessori point of view. It is these views which would confuse people trying to relate Montessori and Attachment Parenting.
For example, Lillard and Jessen suggest that children should sleep on their own in order to encourage independence, which is indeed in opposition with Attachment Parenting. They say that we should begin helping children sleep through the night after two to three months. Lillard and Jessen advocate controlling night time feedings, scheduling sleep, and bedtimes. Again, direct contrast to AP. Lillard and Jessen also come into contrast with Attachment Parenting is their discussion of and recommendations regarding weaning. Lillard and Jessen suggest that a child should be fully weaned by nine months, transitioning to spoon feeding. Their reasoning appears to be independence created by having the child be less dependent upon the mother.
AP would very much disagree with Lillard and Jessen, specifically with regard to sleep and weaning. So would I, and I very much consider myself a Montessorian. I know many Montessorians who put Lillard and Jessen's book down for the very same reasons. And personally, I believe Dr. Montessori would as well.
The thing is, since Dr. Montessori never wrote in-depthly about just infants, and especially did not outline her beliefs about how infants should be raised, it is very hard to know exactly what she might have said when asked questions about sleep or weaning. All we have is the words that Dr. Montessori did write and her general philosophy which we must interpret. For, example, I believe Dr. Montessori was not against use of a crib for an infant, because she refers to it as beautiful in her chapter about sleep in The Secret of Childhood. Her designation of sleep as an obstacle to growth was targeted at when children were forced to sleep and kept from moving about freely. Her suggestion of the floor bed was for when the child was able to move on his own. What she was saying is that children should be able to choose to sleep or to not sleep; that is where independence comes into the scenario.
For this reason, I think that she would very much disagree with the belief that children at any age should be sleep trained or expected to be sleeping through the night by a certain age. I think instead her argument would be to follow the child. What the child needs is what we should be giving, which falls very much in line with Attachment Parenting. Dr. Montessori talked about letting children do what they are capable of, but I don't believe that she meant for us to decide what it is they are capable of. We cannot decide when the child sleeps or when the child weans, but rather follow the child's cues in assisting the child with both. For example, some children sleep fine on their own or for long periods, and these children should be allowed to do so. But others, need additional help falling asleep or staying asleep, and these children should be helped accordingly. I think the Montessori philosophy instead would encourage that we observe our children as they become more successful at doing these things on our own and step back our assistance as they gain skills. This is congruent with AP bed-sharers who slowly help their child move out of the family bed by stepping them out slowly as the child becomes more able to sleep on his own.
When it comes to weaning, Lillard and Jessen's recommendations go against organizations like the American Pediatric Association (who recommends weaning after at least 12 months) and the World Health Organization (who recommends weaning after two years). Being a medical doctor, I believe that Dr. Montessori would have been much more inclined to follow the medical guidelines and very much believe in the well-established health benefits that have been associated with long-term breastfeeding. Again, this would be in line with Attachment Parenting. When it comes to weaning, I would not be surprised if she fell more in line with Baby Led Weaning. This philosophy not only follow's the child, but promotes independence, unlike Lillard and Jessen's suggestions for spoon feeding.
Lastly, Dr. Montessori believed that love was an essential part of helping the child develop. Her belief in following the child asked that we use their cues as a road map for helping them find independence. She believed that the child from birth to age three has an unconscious absorbent mind in which they instinctively lay the foundational skills they will need to become independent from the adult (talking, walking, learning to fall asleep). But, not until they reach the conscious absorbent mind, age three to six, will they openly and consciously begin to develop this. It is the child's natural ability to find independence, and Dr. Montessori's goal for adults was to not get in the way of this, but also not to force it either. Instead, we should guide, love, and support their natural development of themselves.
I think that the ideas Montessori put forth, especially to love and follow the child, fall very much in line with Attachment Parenting. One can easily raise a Montessori child while following Attachment Parenting principles. Indeed, the two can coexist.
It's easy to see why someone would see a conflict arising, however. Montessorians are tirelessly spouting the need for a child's independence. Much of what Dr. Montessori wrote is about this very principle. But, as often happens when people begin to interpret the good doctor, that independence lies within the context of a much greater philosophy and broader belief system about children. I believe that if you were to boil down this very complex philosophy into a phrase, it would not be "independence." It would be "follow the child."
Dr. Montessori's quest for the child's independence was not based on a belief that children should be made to do everything by themselves. Instead, it was a very unique statement in a century when children were thought to be blank slates, having no knowledge or ability, and only by pouring knowledge into them might they learn anything. The method of education at the time was to sit them at desks and have them learn everything from a teacher's lectures. Sound familiar? The upper class was often pampering their children by doing everything for them. Children's behaviors were met with punishment and children were easily labeled good or bad. Again, sound familiar?
What she said was revolutionary, although it was built on the works of social and educational scientists before her (Itard, Piaget, Rousseau, etc.). She challenged the traditional presumptions of children and said, instead, that children are innately born to learn. Instead of trying to control them or force them through this process using the adult's desires, adults should guide them through their own process, following their own innate desires. She found that what people saw as negative behaviors (disobedience) and positive behaviors (obedience) were not the true nature of the child. Instead, the child simply wants to learn, explore, and build himself into someone. She wrote "education is a natural process carried out by the child and is not acquired by listening to words but by experiences in the environment.” It is that natural process and innate drive that is the gift of being a human and not just an animal. It is when adults try to direct it that they muck it up.
Enter independence. What Dr. Montessori said about independence is more of a statement about their capabilities. She said "never help a child with a task at which he feels he can succeed." Looking at her words, you can see the focus is on the child; how the child feels about his abilities. Dr. Montessori was telling us to follow the child's lead. If he wants to learn how to do something or shows an interest in something, let us help him get there. Let us help him learn to do things so that he might find the joy in his success and his abilities. Let us assist him when he cannot, all the while demonstrating how to do it, and back off when he can. Let us let him TRY.
Going back to the bloggers question, I found that many of her questions arose because of the book Montessori From The Start. This is not a book written by Dr. Montessori but instead by Paula Polk Lillard and Lynn Lillard Jessen. This book is their interpretation of Montessori for the infant. The reality is, Dr. Montessori did not write books about the infancy period and only makes occasional references to this age. This age group was not in her schools because children at this age need to be with their mothers. So, this book is a single interpretation for Montessori and not necessarily her own guidelines. In my opinion, Lillard and Jessen do a great job talking about the floor bed and the way to set up a nursery, much of which I used when setting up a nursery and my son's floor bed. On the other hand, much of what else they wrote, I find is of their own opinion, and not necessarily the Montessori point of view. It is these views which would confuse people trying to relate Montessori and Attachment Parenting.
For example, Lillard and Jessen suggest that children should sleep on their own in order to encourage independence, which is indeed in opposition with Attachment Parenting. They say that we should begin helping children sleep through the night after two to three months. Lillard and Jessen advocate controlling night time feedings, scheduling sleep, and bedtimes. Again, direct contrast to AP. Lillard and Jessen also come into contrast with Attachment Parenting is their discussion of and recommendations regarding weaning. Lillard and Jessen suggest that a child should be fully weaned by nine months, transitioning to spoon feeding. Their reasoning appears to be independence created by having the child be less dependent upon the mother.
AP would very much disagree with Lillard and Jessen, specifically with regard to sleep and weaning. So would I, and I very much consider myself a Montessorian. I know many Montessorians who put Lillard and Jessen's book down for the very same reasons. And personally, I believe Dr. Montessori would as well.
The thing is, since Dr. Montessori never wrote in-depthly about just infants, and especially did not outline her beliefs about how infants should be raised, it is very hard to know exactly what she might have said when asked questions about sleep or weaning. All we have is the words that Dr. Montessori did write and her general philosophy which we must interpret. For, example, I believe Dr. Montessori was not against use of a crib for an infant, because she refers to it as beautiful in her chapter about sleep in The Secret of Childhood. Her designation of sleep as an obstacle to growth was targeted at when children were forced to sleep and kept from moving about freely. Her suggestion of the floor bed was for when the child was able to move on his own. What she was saying is that children should be able to choose to sleep or to not sleep; that is where independence comes into the scenario.
For this reason, I think that she would very much disagree with the belief that children at any age should be sleep trained or expected to be sleeping through the night by a certain age. I think instead her argument would be to follow the child. What the child needs is what we should be giving, which falls very much in line with Attachment Parenting. Dr. Montessori talked about letting children do what they are capable of, but I don't believe that she meant for us to decide what it is they are capable of. We cannot decide when the child sleeps or when the child weans, but rather follow the child's cues in assisting the child with both. For example, some children sleep fine on their own or for long periods, and these children should be allowed to do so. But others, need additional help falling asleep or staying asleep, and these children should be helped accordingly. I think the Montessori philosophy instead would encourage that we observe our children as they become more successful at doing these things on our own and step back our assistance as they gain skills. This is congruent with AP bed-sharers who slowly help their child move out of the family bed by stepping them out slowly as the child becomes more able to sleep on his own.
When it comes to weaning, Lillard and Jessen's recommendations go against organizations like the American Pediatric Association (who recommends weaning after at least 12 months) and the World Health Organization (who recommends weaning after two years). Being a medical doctor, I believe that Dr. Montessori would have been much more inclined to follow the medical guidelines and very much believe in the well-established health benefits that have been associated with long-term breastfeeding. Again, this would be in line with Attachment Parenting. When it comes to weaning, I would not be surprised if she fell more in line with Baby Led Weaning. This philosophy not only follow's the child, but promotes independence, unlike Lillard and Jessen's suggestions for spoon feeding.
Lastly, Dr. Montessori believed that love was an essential part of helping the child develop. Her belief in following the child asked that we use their cues as a road map for helping them find independence. She believed that the child from birth to age three has an unconscious absorbent mind in which they instinctively lay the foundational skills they will need to become independent from the adult (talking, walking, learning to fall asleep). But, not until they reach the conscious absorbent mind, age three to six, will they openly and consciously begin to develop this. It is the child's natural ability to find independence, and Dr. Montessori's goal for adults was to not get in the way of this, but also not to force it either. Instead, we should guide, love, and support their natural development of themselves.
I think that the ideas Montessori put forth, especially to love and follow the child, fall very much in line with Attachment Parenting. One can easily raise a Montessori child while following Attachment Parenting principles. Indeed, the two can coexist.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Changing My Blog Name and URL
For anyone who may be following my blog, I am changing the blog title and URL this Sunday, January 29, 2012. The blog title will become More Than Just Montessori. The URL will be http://morethanjustmontessori.blogspot.com. Here's hoping everyone can find me and please keep reading!
Friday, January 13, 2012
Temper Tantrum Solutions: The Distraction
Raising a toddler inevitably brings a parent head to head with one of the most challenging of childhood behaviors: the temper tantrum. It's a frustrating experience for parent and child alike, and often ends in a bitter battle with both feeling powerless and confused. The temper tantrum can easily feel like a war you never intended on waging.
To really understand how to handle these behaviors, it's first important to understand what they occur. The problem for a lot of parents is that they approach the temper tantrum conventionally, based on a set of beliefs about the child that end up setting parent against child. But, if you change your belief system and look at the child from a developmental perspective, you may find out that a temper tantrum is a much different kind of behavior than you thought, and, so, much easier to deal with.
To begin this conversation, I want to use an example from my experience with my friend and her 2 1/2 year old. Going on a walk, her daughter wanted to be carried. Having a younger child that she had to pull in a wagon and a dog on a leash, this was an impossibility. She had started the walk by telling her daughter that she would not be able to carry her. When her daughter asked to be carried, she reminded her of this. She offered that she could sit in the wagon. Inevitably, her daughter burst into tears and screams, walking along side her mother continuing to scream and cry. It unsettled her mother who was now caught between the anxious desire to stop the crying and the knowledge that it would not be helpful to give in and carry her daughter. The stage is set for battle.
Let's first look at conventional thoughts about this behavior. Many people would say that this child wants what she wants and is going to scream bloody murder and do whatever she can to get it. They might say she's trying to manipulate her mother, that she's not listening, that she's being disobedient, or that she's misbehaving. A parent looking at the child from this perspective can only feel one thing: anger. The parent feels that the child is trying to get control and instinctively knows that giving that control would not be good. The options in this scenario become complete surrender or declaration of war. Neither of which is good for parent or child.
When parents enter the situation this way, they often try to use bribery, punishment, or give in. Bribery can work, but only if you can be immediate with it. A two year old cannot think far into the future. So, when my friend offered a Popsicle when they got home if her daughter stopped crying, it failed. And that's simply because she didn't have the Popsicle on her, not because it wasn't a good idea. When bribery doesn't work, the next instinctive step in this approach is punishment. But, when my friend suggested to her daughter that they couldn't take any more walks if she was going to behave like this, the crying failed to stop. And the reason for this is again, children can't see that far into the future. Her daughter only cares about and can only think in the moment. While my friend quickly dropped punishment as a solution at this point, many parents might go on and on, raging forward in battle. Time outs and spanking can become the final straw when the screaming breaks the camel's back. That, or they give in because they just can't wage war any longer. In the end, it all leads to more frustration.
So, let's take another approach with this child. Let's throw out words like manipulation, control, or disobedient, and look at the child's developmental abilities. What are her brain and body actually capable of; what can she control and what can she think? From this perspective, she is not capable of understanding why she can't be carried. She does not understand the complexities involved. She only knows that she wants to be with mom and she cannot understand why her mother won't let her. She does not yet have the complex language abilities to explain this, or ask questions, or rationalize further information. All of these abilities would be necessary to calm herself down. So now she is left reverting to crying because she still has that communication instinct from before she developed any language. She is also left upset and frustrated because she cannot figure out any other solution. Her "misbehavior" has now become a cry for help.
Looking at it this way, a parent's reaction is often much more calm, allowing them to approach the situation in a far less combative manner. When the behavior, more realistically, becomes about needing help rather than wanting control, the parent is provided with far more options to change the behavior. So, looking at this behavior as a request for help and an expression of emotional frustration and confusion, it becomes an opportunity to help our children learn how to redirect themselves. It helps a parent look at the situation and say "what does my child want or need right now and how can we find a way to meet both of our needs?"
Let's look at my friend and her daughter again. What this little girl was expressing was the desire to be held. There are two reasons likely for this: she either is too tired to walk or she wants to spend time with her mother. Since she turned down the offer to sit in the wagon, we can conclude her desire is to be with her mother and her interpretation of that desire is to want to be held. Unfortunately, mom cannot meet the need in that manner. So what can be done?
The answer is actually pretty simple, although, in all honesty, it can be exhausting. However, I promise it's far less exhausting than listening to a kid scream or fighting with her. The answer is redirection, otherwise known as distraction.
After a little while of screaming and some failed attempts at the conventional solutions mentioned earlier, we began to look for ways to engage her daughter. When looking at it from another approach and seeing that her daughter wants her mom, then the solution to distract her from wanting to be held by mom became doing other things with mom.
We were headed towards a creek, so we began to look for things we could throw into it. Then at the creek, mom and daughter tossed things in and saw what happened. Further down the path we found puddles to jump. Then we came up with some games. I announced that whoever touched the nearby tree first would "win" and soon mom and daughter were off running. Her daughter loved the game so much that every few feet they raced to the next tree, bush, fire hydrant, street corner, etc. No more tears the entire walk back, and mom didn't have to give in to carrying her daughter.
This solution requires creativity and effort, and it can be tiring when you are constantly having to think of something new because children at the tantrum age have short attention spans or become so involved and don't want to move on (and in the case of a walk, sometimes you have to keep moving). But, when the solution leads to giggles and enjoyment of each other's company rather than a major battle, you will find that not only does your child just need some extra help when they melt down, but that instead of being the bad guy, you can be the good guy.
To really understand how to handle these behaviors, it's first important to understand what they occur. The problem for a lot of parents is that they approach the temper tantrum conventionally, based on a set of beliefs about the child that end up setting parent against child. But, if you change your belief system and look at the child from a developmental perspective, you may find out that a temper tantrum is a much different kind of behavior than you thought, and, so, much easier to deal with.
To begin this conversation, I want to use an example from my experience with my friend and her 2 1/2 year old. Going on a walk, her daughter wanted to be carried. Having a younger child that she had to pull in a wagon and a dog on a leash, this was an impossibility. She had started the walk by telling her daughter that she would not be able to carry her. When her daughter asked to be carried, she reminded her of this. She offered that she could sit in the wagon. Inevitably, her daughter burst into tears and screams, walking along side her mother continuing to scream and cry. It unsettled her mother who was now caught between the anxious desire to stop the crying and the knowledge that it would not be helpful to give in and carry her daughter. The stage is set for battle.
Let's first look at conventional thoughts about this behavior. Many people would say that this child wants what she wants and is going to scream bloody murder and do whatever she can to get it. They might say she's trying to manipulate her mother, that she's not listening, that she's being disobedient, or that she's misbehaving. A parent looking at the child from this perspective can only feel one thing: anger. The parent feels that the child is trying to get control and instinctively knows that giving that control would not be good. The options in this scenario become complete surrender or declaration of war. Neither of which is good for parent or child.
When parents enter the situation this way, they often try to use bribery, punishment, or give in. Bribery can work, but only if you can be immediate with it. A two year old cannot think far into the future. So, when my friend offered a Popsicle when they got home if her daughter stopped crying, it failed. And that's simply because she didn't have the Popsicle on her, not because it wasn't a good idea. When bribery doesn't work, the next instinctive step in this approach is punishment. But, when my friend suggested to her daughter that they couldn't take any more walks if she was going to behave like this, the crying failed to stop. And the reason for this is again, children can't see that far into the future. Her daughter only cares about and can only think in the moment. While my friend quickly dropped punishment as a solution at this point, many parents might go on and on, raging forward in battle. Time outs and spanking can become the final straw when the screaming breaks the camel's back. That, or they give in because they just can't wage war any longer. In the end, it all leads to more frustration.
So, let's take another approach with this child. Let's throw out words like manipulation, control, or disobedient, and look at the child's developmental abilities. What are her brain and body actually capable of; what can she control and what can she think? From this perspective, she is not capable of understanding why she can't be carried. She does not understand the complexities involved. She only knows that she wants to be with mom and she cannot understand why her mother won't let her. She does not yet have the complex language abilities to explain this, or ask questions, or rationalize further information. All of these abilities would be necessary to calm herself down. So now she is left reverting to crying because she still has that communication instinct from before she developed any language. She is also left upset and frustrated because she cannot figure out any other solution. Her "misbehavior" has now become a cry for help.
Looking at it this way, a parent's reaction is often much more calm, allowing them to approach the situation in a far less combative manner. When the behavior, more realistically, becomes about needing help rather than wanting control, the parent is provided with far more options to change the behavior. So, looking at this behavior as a request for help and an expression of emotional frustration and confusion, it becomes an opportunity to help our children learn how to redirect themselves. It helps a parent look at the situation and say "what does my child want or need right now and how can we find a way to meet both of our needs?"
Let's look at my friend and her daughter again. What this little girl was expressing was the desire to be held. There are two reasons likely for this: she either is too tired to walk or she wants to spend time with her mother. Since she turned down the offer to sit in the wagon, we can conclude her desire is to be with her mother and her interpretation of that desire is to want to be held. Unfortunately, mom cannot meet the need in that manner. So what can be done?
The answer is actually pretty simple, although, in all honesty, it can be exhausting. However, I promise it's far less exhausting than listening to a kid scream or fighting with her. The answer is redirection, otherwise known as distraction.
After a little while of screaming and some failed attempts at the conventional solutions mentioned earlier, we began to look for ways to engage her daughter. When looking at it from another approach and seeing that her daughter wants her mom, then the solution to distract her from wanting to be held by mom became doing other things with mom.
We were headed towards a creek, so we began to look for things we could throw into it. Then at the creek, mom and daughter tossed things in and saw what happened. Further down the path we found puddles to jump. Then we came up with some games. I announced that whoever touched the nearby tree first would "win" and soon mom and daughter were off running. Her daughter loved the game so much that every few feet they raced to the next tree, bush, fire hydrant, street corner, etc. No more tears the entire walk back, and mom didn't have to give in to carrying her daughter.
This solution requires creativity and effort, and it can be tiring when you are constantly having to think of something new because children at the tantrum age have short attention spans or become so involved and don't want to move on (and in the case of a walk, sometimes you have to keep moving). But, when the solution leads to giggles and enjoyment of each other's company rather than a major battle, you will find that not only does your child just need some extra help when they melt down, but that instead of being the bad guy, you can be the good guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)