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.