PoAC: Parenting methods
Aug. 20th, 2006 11:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpageI've been thinking a lot recently about different approaches to parenting, and this morning i started to look into one that is growing in popularity: attachment parenting. I know several people who do it, and I wanted to find out if my casual observations of it were actually in line with the theory and recommendations for it. I also wanted to see how closely my parenting style matches attachment parenting, because I don't see my children as lacking in attachment.
The basic premises of attachment parenting are outlined at this site: http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/attachment_parenting.html
I read it with interest, as well as the Wikipedia article on it, and one or two criticisms of it. Here's what I found.
First, many parents are doing many things that are part of attachment parenting without applying the label to it. If you subscribe to the theory that you can't spoil a newborn by picking her up, then you've adopted one of the central tenets of attachment parenting: that newborns are expressing needs for comfort and attachment, and will become more secure if those needs are met promptly. If your baby sleeps close enough to you that you can get to him quickly (in the same room, just across the hall with the doors open, or co-sleeping) and if you go to him when he cries at night, then you are putting that into limited practice. (Co-sleeping is the purest form of attachment parenting, but having the baby sleeping near enough that you get to him quickly fulfills most of the basic tenets of attachment parenting, too.) If you grow to recognize the different cries your baby makes and meet the needs she's expressing with them, you're engaging in attachment parenting. It's about responsiveness to your child, and up to that point, I agree with it and do it.
Where this theory and I start to disagree is in the response to misbehaviour. The following quote sums up the AP theory:
"For example, if a child chases a ball into the road, that is an opportunity to teach him safety measures by practicing for similar situations in the future. The parent could ask the child to purposely throw the ball into the road, then come to the parent and report the situation. In this way, the real lesson can be learned: it is the parent who needs to spend more time teaching safety, not the child who should somehow have known this information, and obviously does not yet know. Punishment is the most damaging response: it is unfair, upsetting, and confusing, and distracts the child from the learning that needs to take place. Instead we should give gentle, respectful instruction at the time the behavior occurs - this is exactly when the child can relate it to his life."
Now, this is exactly what I'd do - the first time the misbehaviour occurred. The second time, I would remind the child of what was learned before and practice. But what about the third and subsequent times? At what point has the misbehaviour turned into a fun game to get Mommy to do something the child finds fun? I've had plenty of incidents where I instructed Elizabeth in a manner similar to the one described above, and she continued to do the misbehaviour. As long as my responses remained positive and gentle, the "no" message didn't get through. When I put in place the three-strikes rule, things started to change. The first time, she gets an explanation and instruction; the second time she gets a reminder of the instruction and a warning; the third time she gets a time-out or some other, appropriate negative consequence. (No, I don't spank.)
Attachment parenting presumes that the child is always trying to do his or her best. This is a reasonable presumption to make of a baby, but starts to become less true as the child gets older. Children aren't perfect, and shouldn't be expected to be; on the other hand, they also shouldn't be permitted to get away with socially-unacceptable behaviour, just because there were underlying causes for it. The adult equivalent is yelling at a clerk at the supermarket because you've had a long, stressful day at work and lost it. No matter how stressed you are, it's not acceptable to yell at someone; and it's not any more acceptable if you're three years old than if you're thirty. As a parent, I will attempt to learn from the situation what my child's limits are, but I will also deal with the behaviour in such a way as to make it less likely that it will be repeated.
So, while "traditional" parenting tends to presume a child needs prompt, negative correction, attachment parenting presumes the opposite. As is common with the extreme ends of any spectrum, the best approach probably lies somewhere in the middle, though in this case, closer to the AP end.
The other problem I see with AP is one that every parent struggles with: how do you know when your child is developmentally ready to do something she's never done before? Most of us look things up in whatever baby advice book we subscribe to, and then start looking for indicators that they're ready. But while more traditional parenting has a tendency to overestimate a child's readiness ("Just let him fuss! He'll soon learn to sleep on his own!") AP, in my experience, has a tendency to underestimate it. Sleep is a perfect example. Babies as young as four months can learn to soothe themselves to sleep without crying it out, according to several prominent pediatricians (such as T. Berry Brazleton; see http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/babysleep/3524.html.) If you put them down drowsy but awake, keep one hand on them, and let them try, they will learn. But few parents, AP or otherwise, manage to teach self-soothing effectively because they respond to every nighttime sound automatically, without waiting to see if the child might go back to sleep on her own, or with just a hand on her tummy or behind her head. By four months, most babies should be able to go six hours without feeding, so nighttime feedings at intervals of two hours are more about comfort than nutrition. Comfort can be offered in other ways, possibly without picking the baby up, so that they learn not to wake up too soon. (My mom managed this with three of her four kids, sleeping through the night by six months without crying it out. I'm going to try it with Claire.)
I could see most parts of AP working very well, provided the parents know what the developmental milestones are and guide their child into them - even when the child is being a bit lazy about them. Most of the time, I'd rather see someone err on the side of too little correction than too much, but neither is optimal for development.
One of my colleagues at my first school told me once that a child who understands and respects the word "no" from an adult at age two will still know and respect it at age twelve and at every age in between. That can only happen if the parents use it wisely, neither too much nor too little, and expect compliance when they do. AP doesn't seem to put enough emphasis on expecting compliance for my taste.
The basic premises of attachment parenting are outlined at this site: http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/attachment_parenting.html
I read it with interest, as well as the Wikipedia article on it, and one or two criticisms of it. Here's what I found.
First, many parents are doing many things that are part of attachment parenting without applying the label to it. If you subscribe to the theory that you can't spoil a newborn by picking her up, then you've adopted one of the central tenets of attachment parenting: that newborns are expressing needs for comfort and attachment, and will become more secure if those needs are met promptly. If your baby sleeps close enough to you that you can get to him quickly (in the same room, just across the hall with the doors open, or co-sleeping) and if you go to him when he cries at night, then you are putting that into limited practice. (Co-sleeping is the purest form of attachment parenting, but having the baby sleeping near enough that you get to him quickly fulfills most of the basic tenets of attachment parenting, too.) If you grow to recognize the different cries your baby makes and meet the needs she's expressing with them, you're engaging in attachment parenting. It's about responsiveness to your child, and up to that point, I agree with it and do it.
Where this theory and I start to disagree is in the response to misbehaviour. The following quote sums up the AP theory:
"For example, if a child chases a ball into the road, that is an opportunity to teach him safety measures by practicing for similar situations in the future. The parent could ask the child to purposely throw the ball into the road, then come to the parent and report the situation. In this way, the real lesson can be learned: it is the parent who needs to spend more time teaching safety, not the child who should somehow have known this information, and obviously does not yet know. Punishment is the most damaging response: it is unfair, upsetting, and confusing, and distracts the child from the learning that needs to take place. Instead we should give gentle, respectful instruction at the time the behavior occurs - this is exactly when the child can relate it to his life."
Now, this is exactly what I'd do - the first time the misbehaviour occurred. The second time, I would remind the child of what was learned before and practice. But what about the third and subsequent times? At what point has the misbehaviour turned into a fun game to get Mommy to do something the child finds fun? I've had plenty of incidents where I instructed Elizabeth in a manner similar to the one described above, and she continued to do the misbehaviour. As long as my responses remained positive and gentle, the "no" message didn't get through. When I put in place the three-strikes rule, things started to change. The first time, she gets an explanation and instruction; the second time she gets a reminder of the instruction and a warning; the third time she gets a time-out or some other, appropriate negative consequence. (No, I don't spank.)
Attachment parenting presumes that the child is always trying to do his or her best. This is a reasonable presumption to make of a baby, but starts to become less true as the child gets older. Children aren't perfect, and shouldn't be expected to be; on the other hand, they also shouldn't be permitted to get away with socially-unacceptable behaviour, just because there were underlying causes for it. The adult equivalent is yelling at a clerk at the supermarket because you've had a long, stressful day at work and lost it. No matter how stressed you are, it's not acceptable to yell at someone; and it's not any more acceptable if you're three years old than if you're thirty. As a parent, I will attempt to learn from the situation what my child's limits are, but I will also deal with the behaviour in such a way as to make it less likely that it will be repeated.
So, while "traditional" parenting tends to presume a child needs prompt, negative correction, attachment parenting presumes the opposite. As is common with the extreme ends of any spectrum, the best approach probably lies somewhere in the middle, though in this case, closer to the AP end.
The other problem I see with AP is one that every parent struggles with: how do you know when your child is developmentally ready to do something she's never done before? Most of us look things up in whatever baby advice book we subscribe to, and then start looking for indicators that they're ready. But while more traditional parenting has a tendency to overestimate a child's readiness ("Just let him fuss! He'll soon learn to sleep on his own!") AP, in my experience, has a tendency to underestimate it. Sleep is a perfect example. Babies as young as four months can learn to soothe themselves to sleep without crying it out, according to several prominent pediatricians (such as T. Berry Brazleton; see http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/babysleep/3524.html.) If you put them down drowsy but awake, keep one hand on them, and let them try, they will learn. But few parents, AP or otherwise, manage to teach self-soothing effectively because they respond to every nighttime sound automatically, without waiting to see if the child might go back to sleep on her own, or with just a hand on her tummy or behind her head. By four months, most babies should be able to go six hours without feeding, so nighttime feedings at intervals of two hours are more about comfort than nutrition. Comfort can be offered in other ways, possibly without picking the baby up, so that they learn not to wake up too soon. (My mom managed this with three of her four kids, sleeping through the night by six months without crying it out. I'm going to try it with Claire.)
I could see most parts of AP working very well, provided the parents know what the developmental milestones are and guide their child into them - even when the child is being a bit lazy about them. Most of the time, I'd rather see someone err on the side of too little correction than too much, but neither is optimal for development.
One of my colleagues at my first school told me once that a child who understands and respects the word "no" from an adult at age two will still know and respect it at age twelve and at every age in between. That can only happen if the parents use it wisely, neither too much nor too little, and expect compliance when they do. AP doesn't seem to put enough emphasis on expecting compliance for my taste.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-20 07:58 pm (UTC)Oh, thank you. While I deal more with adults than children, I'm so happy to see I'm not the only person who believes this.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-20 09:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-20 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-21 12:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-25 12:25 pm (UTC)Obviously it's different with teens, but some of the ideas here are ones that can be applied to everyone - empathy, context, kindness... I try to always start with 'what's wrong?' once the negative behaviour has been halted. Once we work through that (if possible - some kids are not ready to go there) then we work out some consequences that are reasonable, and they seem much more open to taking responsibility for their actions knowing that the adult who is imposing the consequence cares and has their best interests at heart. Also, they appreciate being treated as though this negative behaviour is not how I define them as people. Unless they are in serious psychological trouble, most of them generally want harmony, and are just being pulled in many directions. Also, finding a construtive consequence (you took away from the class by being disruptive, so you can add to the class by cleaning up) allows me to praise their contributions, thus leaving things on a positive note. Obviously this is not a flawless process - I am human and so are they, but I think that many of the concepts of attachment parenting are visible here. Also, you mention that sometimes you get snippy with your little one - I think that's a great time to teach kids that we all get snippy sometimes, and that recognizing it and taking care of ourselves is a good way to deal with it. Nothing floors my students so much as me saying something like 'Hey, guys, let's start over. I'm still frustrated over a situation I dealt with at lunch that has nothing to do with any of you. I'm tired today and I've been a little hard on you. I'm sorry. I'm going to try harder to be civil. Please be patient with me today, okay?' It teaches them to let me know if they are feeling off, and that none of us are perfect. Some of them feel like they will never live up to this implied desire for perfect behaviour, so why bother trying?
It is interesting to watch them deal with this kind of approach. Some of them feel really vulnerable being treated well - it is so different from their home lives.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-25 12:48 pm (UTC)Of course, I've had classes that would see an admission like the one above as an opportunity to make the teacher cry for fun.
Thanks for your perspective. I'm very wrapped up in parenting tiny ones at the moment, and hadn't even thought of how this would work with teens.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-31 01:22 am (UTC)I found the AP site you reference to be nice poetically, but it bears the same relation to the daily grind of child-rearing that a painting of the Garden of Eden bears to traffic jams. Nice ideals, but...
I realized that there was still hope for you when you said, "Where this theory and I start to disagree"
The book on parenting I found particularly useful was "The Kids Are Worth It" bu Barbara Colorosso. (I might have the pattern of double and single letters wrong in her last name, and the title might not have the word "The" in it). It was also available as a videotape, and I think it was once a PBS special. It is perhaps most accessible in the video version, as she is a lively and entertaining speaker. I read/watched it about 15 years ago.
She had a very pragmatic approach. One of her big principles is that although you have to protect your children from getting out of their depth, they still need to learn that decisions have natural consequences. You get them to make their own choices (within safe limits), which may be quite different from yours. You do not protect them from the consequences of these decisions (as long as they are within the safe limits; remember, you set those limits when you gave them the choice) They will gradually learn to make appropriate decisions themselves, learn to take on bigger issues, and become independent, secure, functioning adults.
On several occasions that one of my children asked if he/she could do something, I evaluated the risks, decided they could live through them, and told them, "Yes. You could do that. But it would be a very bad idea." I very explicitly advised them, and then handed the decision back to them. Sometimes they asked why, sometimes they thought it through themselves, sometimes they came up with new alternatives and proposed them. But if they chose the alternative I had advised them against, it was them that lived through the consequences. No extra punishment needed.
Sometimes it takes real creativity to find natural consequences that are still within the bounds of safety (and within the limits of parental sanity!). The book is a great help in finding those.
My children are now 13, 16, and 19. They are going through crises, asking advice or not, understanding it, sometime ignoring it, and creatively building their own lives. I'm proud of them.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-31 02:07 am (UTC)I think I'll look up that book. I've heard of her before - she's the foremost expert in North America on bullying, so her work is available in schools for that.