Negative ("Bad") Behavior in Children - When Is It Ignoring It Better? When Is Ignoring It Not An Option?

 Negative ("Bad") Behavior in Children - When Is Ignoring It Not An Option??


Author's Note

This piece was prepared after I ran into a forum thread on whether or not parents should punish a child for "bad" behavior or ignore it.  The subject was one that I thought would make a better full-sized piece of writing than forum post.


Here's the question asked in the thread: "According to a friend who is also a family therapist, some bad behavior or what he considers to  be acting out should be ignored since it is usually a ploy to gain attention. More specifically; tantrums, yelling, whining or any other  behavior that is negative but not harming the child or anyone else. I'm not so sure I can agree with this completely. While I agree that it is  used for getting attention, I don't think that always ignoring the behavior is an option. So what should be done in those situations where  punishment seems necessary? What do you think?"



One reason I thought this question was one worth elaborating on is that "bad behavior" is such a common topic among parents. The  negative ("bad") behavior, itself, is often just a small part of a bigger picture, even if that bigger picture is a common, normal, and even  temporary one that exists at the time of the negative behavior. What follows addresses the larger picture, as well as some of the smaller,  "bad-behavior" pictures.

.

 All Negative Behavior Is Not Equal

This question is over-simplified because 1) there are parental responses that fall between either "extreme" of ignoring or punishing; and  2) many of child-behavior incidents/situations that can take place are among a wide variety of different behaviors, so parents most often  need to use their own common sense (provided they have some) as their guide in each situation.

Also, this question includes a phrase that, to me, doesn't particularly indicate a solid enough understanding of children. That phrase is  "ploy to gain attention". It's probably safe (and accurate) enough to say that most "bad" behavior comes from a child's need for  attention, but I don't think the signs of needing attention should necessarily, or always, be interpreted as a "ploy" (which suggests the  child just willy-nilly decides he'd like some attention for himself for no particular reason other than his own ego, and then sets about  creating a llittle plan to get that attention. Some "calls for attention" may have more conscious planning to them than others, but a good  part of the time negative behavior is more a matter of something like complete and utter frustration that may or may not also include  physical discomfort (like being tired or hungry).

Some negative behavior can come, too, from a child's not having learned the proper way to handle things when he's faced with a situation  that is beyond his ability to comfortably, acceptably and adequately deal with it.

Often, too, while negative behavior is very likely a sign that a child needs attention; a good part of the time the child, himself, doesn't  even recognize or understand that it is his need for attention that's at the root of the behavior in which he may not even be able to stop  himself from engaging.

Added to the mix of factors that make "bad-behavior" question a matter of not always having a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all, answer  is the fact that each parent's expectations (realistic, reasonable and/or misguided) can color whether or not some behavior is "bad". The  emotional maturity and general developmental level of each child, and each general age-range (as well as the parent's understanding of  different age ranges) also factor into, not just whether or not the behavior is seen as something of concern, but the expectations of the  parent.

Before ending this description of all the factors that prevent the negative-behavior (and how to address it) issue from being a simple,  black-and-white, one; it's worth including one more of those factors: The definition of "ignoring it". When some people use "ignore it" in  the context of discussing this issue they mean exactly that - ignore it, don't do anything or say anything about it (ever), and just wait and  hope that the child outgrows the negative behavior. On the other hand, some people who use the phrase, "ignore it", don't really mean  "ignore it". They really mean "don't punish the child for his behavior and/or at least, don't punish him on the spot, right then and there.

My own interpretation of "ignore it" involves not always, and absolutely, addressing the matter with the child right then and there. Then  again, what makes me say that not absolutely every last, little, misdeed always has to be immediately addressed with the child is that I  have a fairly high threshold for determining what I think of as "bad behavior". Having said that, and in general, however, I don't think  parents should ever ignore negative behavior. I think a whole lot more parents (and more importantly, children) would benefit if more  parents had a better understanding of the roots of negative behavior in their own child and in each situation; and )that's why I'm not  particularly a fan of the "punishing" for a whole lot of the negative behavior that a lot of parents believe warrants punishment. (There's a  difference between "consequences", "parental responsiveness", and the "results achieved" by the child's negative behavior.

To get to a more direct reply to the question-in-question:

I don't think any parent should generally make a habit of ignoring any negative behavior. That doesn't mean "punishing" the child for it,  though. It does mean the parent needs to take some action - just not always "dramatic" or "punishing" action. Why? Because, if nothing  else, a child needs to learn that his negative behavior isn't the right way to deal with whatever his problem is. Something to consider,  however, is that the kinds of behavior mentioned in the question above (tantrums, whining, yelling) is very often not behavior that  should warrant "punishment". It's behavior that warrants "addressing" (either immediately or in the near future) - and there's a big  difference between punishing and addressing.

Something else mentioned in the question above is using "not harming the child or anyone" as a determining factor when it comes to  what should be addressed and what should be ignored. This one is a little tricky because "not harming the child or anyone else" isn't  always as clear-cut as it may seem to a lot of people. For example, the child who gets angry at his parent and, in his anger, runs out into a  parking lot to get away from the parent has done something that is potentially dangerous to himself (not to mention potentially  disastrous for any ill-fated and even slow-driving drivers unfortunate enough to have him run into their path). That example is an easy  one when it comes to deciding what could be harmful or dangerous.

Here, however, is an example that may not be so easy: Suppose a five-year-old gets close his mother's face and screams something  disrespectful at her. Some people might say, "Oh well, nobody is going to get harmed." Here's where the "harm" comes in, though: A  five-year-old child needs to know he can count on his mother to be the one who can, and will, help him deal with a world in which he has  existed for such a few, short, years. His mother needs to know how to establish the kind of relationship (which includes respect between  the two of them) that will grow, rather than erode, not just through the child's childhood, but (hopefully) throughout the rest of their  lives.

The potential harm in allowing this kind of behavior to go ignored is ultimately to the child's emotional well-being, the relationship  between him and his mother, the child's development of solid social skills, and even the overall health of the family/household  environment. One five-year-old who yells at his mother this way only once, and in a rare instance of complete and utter frustration; may  not ever do such a thing again. The problem is that children this young are at the age when they're learning how things are done, and  what they can get away with. Making it clear to the child that such behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and letting him know that if he  ever does it again there will be consequences (such as not getting a treat on the next shopping trip, not getting to go somewhere he  hopes to go, etc.) is important.

The child for whom this behavior is a rare and uncharacteristic thing probably already knows that he "lost it" and probably already feels  bad about it. Letting him know that the behavior is unacceptable isn't sending him a message he may not already know. If, on the other  hand, he didn't already know that the behavior won't be tolerated, now he will.

Some negative behavior (like the yelling in this example) may be a matter of earlier earlier negative behavior having escalated to a more  noticeable level. Sometimes, on the other hand, if the behavior is generally uncharacteristic of the child, what needs to be addressed  (besides letting him know the behavior isn't acceptable) is the cause of his action. For example, a child who lives with the chronic teasing  and over-powering of an older sibling may live in a chronic state of wishing his parent would stop the older sibling once in awhile, if not  permanently. The parent who is oblivious to her child's chronic state of feeling over-powered/mistreated may not see that if her five-year -old "explodes" on day that's the result of his "not exploding" for a good stretch of time. The straw that breaks the camel's back could be  one, seemingly out-of-the-blue, demonstration of anger toward the mother (maybe at a time when she has, yet again, failed to step in on  the child's behalf).

In a situation like this, letting the child know what the behavior won't be tolerated and addressing the underlying cause of the behavior  are two separate things. It's always wise, in a situation like this, to let the child know the yelling won't be tolerated. In a case like this, the  fact is the child IS in need of attention. His behavior, however, is not necessarily a constructed ploy to get that attention. He's just plain  miserable and frustrated, and what he needs is for his mother to do her job of protecting him from a situation that makes him so  chronically upset.

Some young children just haven't yet learned how to express frustration in a socially acceptable way. Most, to one degree or another,  aren't able to manage their own frustrations in the same way that some (but certainly not all) adults have. Also, some young children  learn the negative behavior from the very parent who sees it objectionable when it shows up in his child, because one of the biggest  ways children learn about behavior is through emulating the behavior of parents.

Emulating aside, when a household includes some types of behavior that essentially amount of a child's seeing that behavior as "the way  things are done are in this house" (or in the world) that's what the child learns about the ways things are done. One difference between  parents who engage in what may be a less extreme version of the same behavior is that parents can know (or think they know) when to  draw the line on their own behavior. Children are known for not knowing where to draw lines. That's why parents need to let them know  where lines are drawn.

 That's also why parents need to ask themselves whether, in fact, they draw their own lines when they should, and particularly whether or  not they have a different set of lines for other people, as opposed to their child. Children see how their parents treat others, and they feel  how their parents treat them. Somewhere in the mix of what children see, feel, and are told with regard to what's acceptable and what isn't  is the message they get - but also the difference between whether they see the reason and good sense in it or see only contradictions.

The point (again) is that letting a child know that behavior won't be tolerated is a very different thing from addressing the cause of one  incident (and particularly several incidents), and sometimes it can be completely misguided to hope that even punishment will be  effective when there is conflict in the message, the rules, and the examples of acceptable-versus-unacceptable behavior.

When children are (and feel) respected by parents it comes more naturally to them to treat their parents (and most other people) with  similar respect. One of the most effective weapons a parent can have is being able to say, "We don't treat you that way, and you will not  treat us, of anyone else, that way either. That's not what we, in this family, have going on in our home."

Of course, different ages bring different challenges to kids. A five-year-old child already has much of nature/behavior established. A two -year-old has a different set of challenges, but a lot of what a two-year-old does is the result of his being so new to being the youngest  age at which a child is "an independent, but still very little, person", a lot of the "behavior bugs" in two-year-olds are more a matter of  frustration and social awkwardness than anything else. That doesn't mean a parent should tolerate her two-year-old's slapping her in the  face or intentionally kicking her or the cat, but it means that there's most often nothing more to be understood than the fact that two-year -olds still have a lot of learning and maturing to do. I , personally, think it's wisest to let even a two-year-old know that yelling at his  mother is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. Then again, if a two-year-old yells in church or the movie theater the best response to  that just might be to leave the church or theater. Two-year-olds aren't consistently (if ever) capable of sitting quietly for longer than their  age permits. Expecting them to do so isn't just expecting too much of them. It's contributing to their frustration.

 A child this young counts on his parents (even if he doesn't realize he's doing it) to kind of act as a go-between between him and the  frustrations of his day and of the world. When the person he should be able to count on doesn't realize the ways he needs her to make  things a little easier for him, it shouldn't be a surprise that a two-year-old suffers the double-whammy of the situation, itself, and the fact  that the person who should help him feel better doesn't know that that's what she needs to do. "Double-whammy frustration" is tough  even for adults. It's no wonder so many two-year-olds "lose it".

The parent who has a pretty good understanding of ways to often prevent tantrums in two-year-olds usually know that, at best, even  that understanding will only be so effective over the course of the years between just-before-two and, maybe, just-turned-three. One  important thing to keep in mind about tantrums in a two-year-old is that, even if they're generally part of being around two for a lot of  young children, that's when parents need to know how not to "teach" their child that tantrums are an effective way of getting what he  wants. Still, treating the tantrum-throwing child as if he's doing something worthy of punishment is like treating a one-year-old who steps  into the street the same way. Plain and simple, it's a parent's job to oversee the situation in which toddlers and the youngest pre- schoolers find themselves, and it's a parent's job to help such young children manage situations that are simply more than their  developmental levels allows.

Essentially, the first three years of a child's life are major, major, developmental-advancement years. When a child is three, has good  language skills, and has ironed out all the "social bugs" of his first three years that's when a whole lot of socially unacceptable behavior  dies out naturally.

I think that if there's one crucial year in a child is interested, anxious, and receptive in learning "how things are done" socially, it's the  year when he is three years old. The child who gets to four or five and hasn't yet learned what's acceptable already has a couple of years  of negative social behavior on which to build and/or that needs to be un-learned. The tantrum in a five-year-old is a very different thing  from the tantrum thrown by a two-year-old. "Addressing" something like tantrums in a five-year-old may or may not be something a  parent knows how to do, but if she doesn't know how to do it (other than just punishing the child), asking for professional help in  learning how to do it would be wise. (It's always less than a year before a five-year-old turns six, needless to say.  A junior-high guidance  counselor/vice principal once commented to me, "I can go to "X Elementary School", see how a kid is when he's seven years old, and  have a pretty good idea about whether he's likely to get into serious problems when he's a teenager." This individual did add, "Of course,  you can't always be 100% certain, but I can tell you that in general, it can be a pretty accurate way of knowing which kids are going to  have problems."

His point was (and my point is) that by the time a child is seven years old, behavior problems in day-to-day getting along in life and  being generally socially-acceptable people aren't usually associated with "something understandable" (like their developmental level).

On the other hand, while the behavior issues associated with much younger children, and associated with "no harming themselves or  anyone else", may be more numerous and more likely to occur; the negative ("bad") behavior that can surface in grade-school aged kids,  but still be associated with their developmental level and emotional/social immaturity, can seem far less benign (and far more ominous) to  parents.

Whether the negative (bad) behavior of a child in this age range is yet another matter of his immaturity or not can depend on the  behavior, how many incidents of it take place (or take place within in a certain time frame), and any number of other things too specific to  the incident, the child, the situation, and his parents to easily know.

While lying and/or stealing are common in kids this age, there are times when one or both are a sign that the problem goes beyond just  immature, insecurity, and/or resisting urges and temptation. With the increased age, seriousness of some of the issues that can arise in  this age range, and the child's increased ability to understand right from wrong; it's always important not to ignore some of this behavior.  At the same time, while it is my personal opinion that talking about the reasons one deed or another are unacceptable is important, and  while having consequences result from the deed; I think parents need to understand that there's a 50% chance their child already feels  ashamed of himself for having not been able to resist temptation or for not being able to "just be honest". There's also a 50% chance their  child is a child who doesn't feel particularly guilty or ashamed for what he's done.

How each child and each situation should be addressed depends, I think, on whether the child is generally a caring, decent, child who  has "slipped up" because "all kids do stupid things at one time or another", or is a child who may have quite some time ago stopped  worrying about trying to be the good person his parents say they want him to be (and who may have given up bothering for one reason  or another).

So the children who "stop bothering" have anger after feeling nobody has met their needs for "x amount of time" (even if they don't  know enough to recognize it on an intellectual level). Some may not have anger. Instead, they just have trouble doing what they know  they should be doing (and not doing what they know is wrong).

Sometimes, too, "stopping bothering" isn't something that the child does across the board, or that seems to be a part of the nature he's  developed. Instead, it may involve only individual people or situations. For example, a child who behaves perfectly well at school may act  up at home - or the other way around. A child who bothers to try to do what's right at, say, holiday gatherings or restaurants may not be  a child who is able to (or feels the need to) keep bothering when it comes to his school work.

No, "bad" behavior is not a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all, thing. Neither is the precisely appropriate approach to addressing it. Still,  too often, too many parents treat what should otherwise have been seen as "understandable" behavior as if their child must certainly be  headed for a lifetime of crime. Also too often, parents who approach their child's negative behavior as if it's nothing more than a matter of  "what all kids do" learn too late that not "all kids" keep getting away with that behavior, and their own child's behavior goes from  something that was once fairly understandable based on his age has turned into something far more serious.

None of this discussion even addresses the matter of the challenges faced by, and posed by, kids who have reached their teens. The  stakes are often higher for teens in a lot of ways. Their world is larger than it was five or ten years ago. The teen years are a time when  even "the best kids" can do some really dangerous and/or stupid things. Those years are also a time when some of the "issues" a kid  developed as a young child turn a lot more serious. The pull to be grown up, and the need to be cool (or at least not shunned), can call  for a resistance to peer pressure that even a lot of parents (who also want to prove that they're the adult and/or also don't want to be  shunned by one person or group of another) can't always muster up. A lot of a teen's conscience has (or hasn't) become well developed  by this age. Also, their ability know what's right and how they ought to behave is a whole lot more developed for them than for four-year -olds. The outward picture of a teen doesn't necessarily always indicate that, however, because there are so many factors that can go into  which teen may adopt which unacceptable behavior (and even whether the behavior is truly unacceptable, just unacceptable to their  parents, or unacceptable in view of their age).

In any case, the situation with negative behavior in teens is too complex to address here. The point is negative behavior in kids this age  often either stems from their having developed that mind of their own or else from their having a brain that hasn't quite had the finishing  touches put on it. Their inner world, home world, and the world outside their home all combine to contribute to either good or  unacceptable behavior. In a way, however, it can almost be a little easier for parents to differentiate between "what isn't harming them or  anyone else" and "what may be harmful" (to the teen, his future, his health, his relationships with his parents and others in his family,  etc.).

Contrary to the above example of the five-year-old who yells in his mother's face, it can be a lot easier to determine whether there's harm  in dying one's hair purple versus whether there's harm in using drugs or hanging around with delinquents.

When all has gone smoothly until the teen years, there's usually no more worrying about whether a child will yell out in church or a  theater. The teen whose parents have managed to do a pretty good job isn't likely to resort to that kind of behavior. As little as even this  much accomplishment as a parent can seem to mean when a teen is "going through a thing", the fact is a solid, respectful, relationship  built between a parent and a child in those earlier years does give a big edge to parents when it comes to getting through some of those  more challenging teen issues. The child who stopped bothering at ten isn't likely to start bothering at fifteen.

In any case, a teen is certainly old enough to know that doing something like yelling at parents is not acceptable. My personal belief is  that while not being too tough ("punishing") a five-year-old who slips up in the behavior department is the understanding thing, it's the  teen years when - really - kids are old enough to know better and old enough to have more expected of them. To me, this is the age when  punishment (rather than just lesson-based consequences) can be more appropriate. As with younger kids, I don't think one slip-up (with  something like yelling at a parent) necessarily calls for punishment, provided the message that the behavior won't be tolerated has been  received loud and clear. To me, however, the fifteen-year-old who "mouths off" more than once may benefit from being punished with  something like not being allowed to go to some event/place; or not being given money for one thing or another.

Even with teens, however, I still think things aren't always all that black-and-white or one-size-fits-all. The teen who is generally a well  behaved, decent, caring, kid and who "loses it" once may need the kind of "pass" a parent who, in his lifetime, has ever once "lost it"  would give himself.

Regardless of a child's age, where common sense can come in is in knowing one's own child, having one's eyes open, and in being able to  recognize whether one incident of bad behavior is just that or is, instead, part of a larger picture of overall negative behavior. Regardless  of a child's age, it's usually easy enough for a kid to see the fairness in consequences that result from behavior that even the child,  himself, knows is unacceptable. What's not as easy for kids of any age to understand is the fact that their parents often don't react to  some misdeeds in a way that seems to indicate that their parents understand why some kids sometimes do some things.

And what about that whining that was mentioned?

My own opinion of whining is that while it's certainly unpleasant behavior, it's far from "bad" behavior. Although there are, of course,  kids who have learned that whining is the only way to get some version of results, whining is sometimes not at all what it seems to be to  some parents. Much of the time, children who are miserable are going to express it. Some children are more aggressive and/or demanding,  so if/when they express their anger and/or other misery it doesn't come out in the form of whining. Children are aren't the least bit bold or  aggressive can tend to voice their misery in a tone that comes out as "whining". Rather than add yet more words to this already too-long  piece, I'm including a link to a short piece I wrote awhile back about whining:

 https://sites.google.com/site/mewhelanonline/children/whining

Giving Your Child An Allowance - Does It Really Send The Right Message?

Author's Note: Before I discuss my views on allowances let me go bar my front door, pull my shades, and shut off all my lights. I need to hide from those who will want to tar and feather me.

Ok - here goes:
I don't believe in allowances, and I don't believe kids need allowances in order to learn the value of money or importance of managing it wisely. In fact, particularly today, I believe that too much money when kids aren't old enough (or willing) to work for it can create problems that would not otherwise have arisen.

Does An Allowance Really Send the Right Message?

When my kids were young I dealt with the money issue the same way my own parents did: Parents covered all necessary expenses, school events and needs, special occasion needs (like birthday gifts for parties) and a limited amount of entertainment expenses (the occasional movie or tickets for a trip to an amusement park, baseball game, etc.). The entertainment expenses were kept limited, and parents explained how only so much money could/should be spent on entertainment. Aunts and grandmothers often sent money at birthday times, and children could save. Sometimes grandmothers would hand a grandchild a couple of dollars just because they thought it was a nice thing to do. School promotion time brought cards with a few dollars in them. Kids were encouraged to save up their money to buy something worthwhile, and for some reason that's what usually happened.

Christmas and birthdays offered the chance for kids to have "one, big, gift" and a bunch of smaller ones. It was always made clear to kids that they should choose their "one, big, gift" wisely. During non-special times of year adults would buy the occasional small item for children just because it’s kind of nice to get a little toy or activity that's new and different, but kids understood there was a limit to the number of toys/activities bought in any one week and a limit on the amount spent.

Kids were told, "We'll cover the basics, but if you want to do something to earn a little extra spending money we'll help in any way we can." It was generally established that even before a kid gets to be of working age there are often little jobs s/he can do. At eleven I went to the store for neighbor-mothers with babies and was given fifty cents each time. There were also times when the young mothers would give me fifty cents for pushing their baby (in a carriage) back and forth near the house for a while, so they could get some work done. I was thirteen when I began babysitting.

Because I was a reliable and sensible babysitter more and more neighbors requested my services. It wasn't long before I had a monopoly in the neighborhood, and there was one, particularly special, family who moved but came back to pick me up so I could still sit. (I sat for them until I was 19, and their kids were big, even after I began working at 16.)

Newspaper routes were a way kids could earn money. My own eleven-year-old son earned the money to buy his first Nintendo system and was very proud of having done that.

In general, the way my family has always done things, children haven't felt particularly deprived because parents covered as many expenses as they did. Young children don't really need much more, and it isn't until a kid gets to be thirteen or so when the wish to have more spending money starts to get really strong. A kid that age can often find a way to earn some extra money, but if s/he cannot s/he will only have to wait a little while before being old enough to find a "real" part-time job. Thirteen to fifteen or so tend to be ages when kids are at high risk of getting into a little trouble, and I think the limitations of having little money can often keep a kid home at a time when too much out-and-around time isn't always good. Once kids were old enough to become employed it was understood that if they wanted extra spending money they needed to work for it. If they chose not to work they would need to live within parents' budgets when it came to spending money.

Our family had the general attitude that family members are supposed to help other family members at times - not because they'll be paid for services but because that's what families do. My belief (like my parents' was) has always been that it is the parents' responsibility to cover the expenses of childrearing, and providing for adequate social and entertainment activities is part of normal childrearing. "Adequate", however, is very different from "all the socializing and entertaining you want". In general, the idea always was that younger children's extra spending needs are fairly limited. Once teenagers get old enough to want to get a car, go out eating, and do things that require more money their "extra expenses" become a little higher and require a little pitching in on their part.

I've never believed I needed to hand my children money that was under the name of "allowance" just because they were my children. My kids had plenty of things and somehow had learned to be very careful with all those dollar bills and five-dollar bills they had been given at birthday time or upon accomplishment.

To me, it didn't seem like such a bad idea to let them know that dependence on others is for children and that a fixed weekly income comes when a person is willing and able to work for it. I wanted them to know if they needed anything they had me (and their father) to provide it, and when it came to things they wanted we'd provide as much as we could. My parenting was, to me, not a business arrangement. Somehow offering an allowance and getting into a whole, big, formal, arrangement as "allowance-payer" wasn't my idea of how things should be done. I wanted a less formal arrangement as provider, but it was also important to me that my children learn that when all is said and done people who want more money or stuff than they already have must work for it. To me, learning that there are limitations when one must be dependent on others helped children realize that part of being grown-up is working and earning a little more independence as a result of it.

At eleven years old I was proud that those young mothers trusted me to get exactly what they asked for from the store or to push their babies. I'd save up four of those quarters and use them to buy Barbie outfits, which at the time were usually about two dollars. All those neighborhood babysitting jobs (that earned me about $50 a week decades ago) made me feel as if people (other than my parents) saw me as a trustworthy, capable, individual. When I got a job as a supermarket cashier a couple of weeks after turning sixteen I was not only able to buy an ugly suede jacket for myself, but I learned how to overcome shyness and be friendly toward strangers, as well as overcome it enough to use the paging system. I made a lot of new, different, friends at the store as well. Most importantly, perhaps, I learned what it feels like to have a reputation as "one of the best and reliable cashiers".

Having one's "own money" is very different from being handed money by one's parents.
Parents can obviously teach their children about money in the way they sit fit, and I don't think allowances are the worst thing in the world. Its just that I don't think an allowance is always the best way to teach the value of money and good money management, and there's at least the chance the offering an allowance can blur the line between "providing for" and "own money". There may also be the chance that kids who are handed a fixed amount of cash each week could actually miss out on learning some of the ideas about money that most of us hope they will learn.

Ok. There, I've said it. If nobody with tar and feathers shows up by tomorrow I'll assume I'm safe.

Just Thoughts on Raising Children to Be Responsible

The best way to have children turn out to be responsible adults may be to be a very responsible adult, so they see what a responsible adult does.

So often I've heard parents talk about how they insist that their children do household chores "so they'll learn to be responsible". Sometimes these are even chores the parents have decided they, themselves, will no longer do because "the children need to learn". I'm not "anti-chores" when the matter is handled in a way that is reasonable; but sometimes parents require children to do the very chores they, the parents - whose responsibility those chores are - won't do them!

The parent who sits on the couch behind a newspaper every evening, rather than spending time with the children or even doing housework, is showing children that when people grow up they don't need to do what someone else wishes they would. The parent who sits and talks to another parent (or on the cell phone) at the park and gets so engrossed in conversation may not notice if her child needs something. I'm not saying parents shouldn't socialize, but we've all seen people not noticing the children because of being too busy in conversation with an adult. These same parents may try to teach their children that "there is a time and place for things".

When kids see their parents doing all kinds of things the kids wouldn't want to do (getting up to make breakfast for everyone else, paying bills, calling the plumber, fixing the roof, walking the dog in the middle of the night, etc.) they often not only start to see that this what being an adult is, but they also may admire their parents for doing all the things they do. (I think kids need to see that being adult can also mean having fun sometimes, but that's a topic for another day.)

When children have parents who act very responsibly, and when, as part of acting responsibly parents also talk to children all throughout their childhoods about why one thing or another is important, there's a good chance children grow up to be apples that didn't fall far from the tree.

There is one other factor that could play a role in which children grow up to be responsible adults; and that is when children have childhoods that are pretty carefree and secure, and parents who assure that their children's childhoods are safeguarded, the children often grow up not missing anything and more than ready to take on their own adult responsibilities when the time comes. It is at least possible that children who miss too much of what children need from childhood may grow up still wanting to hang onto to their childhood in some way and not too interested in anything they may view as a burden.

Children and Stealing

This is a subject I ran into in an online forum, so I thought I'd post my reply here:

It's one thing if it the friends are, say, teens who shoplift.  That's not something "all kids" (or at least a lot of kids) do.  With younger kids (especially kids around 5/6, I think, but maybe even with some a little older in some cases), it's a different thing.

Young kids can be raised to know what's right and wrong, and they can very much want to do what's right.  What they run into can be temptation that's more than they're emotionally ready to be able to resist.  They know "in their head" that stealing is wrong.  (That's why a lot of them are very clever at making sure nobody ever discovers that they've taken something.) It's not something that absolutely "every" kid does as a little kid, but it's something a whole lot of kids do (and even if for some, it's nothing more than a candy bar once or twice).  There's something awfully appealing about something like a candy-bar rack, and resisting that urge (especially if kids know their parent won't buy it) can be hard for - like - a five-year-old.  Their brains are developed enough for them to be able to think up "deceit" and a "plan" and a "cover-up", but emotionally they're not always able to resist the urge to take what they want.

When he was still with ABC News, John Stossel did a thing on what's called "frustration tolerance point", and it was found that the more kids did without something, the more likely it would be that they'd hit their frustration toleration point and be unable to resist temptation.

It's not just stuff like candy, though.  Little kids may see something that appeals to them, like shiny coins, other "shiny objects".  Kids who have plenty of the kind of thing that catches their eye aren't as likely to have that frustration tolerance point as kids who never really have the kind of thing they find appealing for reason or another.

It gets the best of them.  They take something here or there.  Some take more than one thing here or there.  They feel horrible about what they did (if they're normal, rather than if they're just "little sociopaths", which most little kids are not).  Eventually (and in generally not in all that many years at all), most outgrow even having the urge to steal at all and/or they at least become emotionally mature enough to be able to control the urge to steal if it happens they get such an urge.  Most just outgrown even seeing (if only for a moment) stealing as an option, no matter how much they want something.

Young children of the "best parents in the world" have been known to "lift" something at one time or another, or even over a period of time when they were in that "around five" (or so) age range.

Here's the take of The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry on the matter:
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_who_steal

Childhood Obesity

Does Letting Kids Grow Up Too Fast Play A Role In Today's Rate Of Childhood Obesity?With all the talk about childhood obesity these days, it seems as if most people blame fast food for this problem, which results not only in obesity, but which can lead to Type II Diabetes, as well.

While fast food may frequently "be in the picture" when it comes to childhood obesity, I can't help but wonder if there's a chicken-egg aspect to it; and if the real problem is what makes kids want/need more of this food than they otherwise may (or than a lot of other kids do).

My own children, now grown, were always very slender kids; and I'd bring them to fast-food places a few times a week, when we'd be on the way to pick up their father and when I'd know they'd be too hungry to wait until we got home. All three children (two boys and one girl) ate a modest meal when they were grade-school age. They'd get juice or milk, so they didn't have the soda. Before they were grade-school age each child barely ate what was in, say, a Happy Meal. They'd eat a part of the sandwich, about three French fries, and maybe a couple of the cookies (which was what came in those meals at the time).

So, what I wonder is this: What makes some children "chow down" on fast food when, really, the over-eating isn't something normally "built into" a child's nature (even when he's at a fast-food place).

It is now known that stress can cause fierce food cravings because under stress the body craves high-energy foods (foods high in carbohydrates and fat). I can't help but wonder if many children today live under stress because they're allowed to, and even encouraged to, grow up too soon. One point about stress cravings is that the person so stressed out as to need high-energy foods will not feel well, may have trouble concentrating, and may even have difficulty doing much of anything unless/until he eats the kind of food his body craves.

For the person experiencing that physiological call to eat carbohydrates and/or fat, not only will he not feel satisfied until he has eaten what his body craves, but the person under stress may feel nauseous eating something like salad because changes in stomach acid can mean eating something blander (like bread) eliminates any mild sense of nausea or other discomfort that the stressed-and-empty stomach can cause.

Many people may think about how many girls show physical signs of growing up earlier than girls in the past did, and believe that this is just one more indication that kids "just grow up faster today". The truth is that a link has been made to stress and early onset of menstruation; so even if it appears that kids are "just growing up faster", what's behind that particular piece of "evidence" is stress.

People who understand child development know that children's brains and bodies generally develop according to a basic time-table; and regardless of what time we live in, or what society we live in, toddlers still get teeth during a certain age range, learn to walk during a certain age rage, etc. etc. The same applies to all areas and stages of child development.

It just makes sense to me that, in view of the fact that the stages of development people knew about in the era of Dr. Spock are the same for children today; so one has to ask what impact it would have on a child who is not emotionally ready to be treated like an adult, or to be expected by the world to act more grown-up than his years.

In other words, just because a four-year-old may be capable of playing his older brother's video games; or just because a lot of a thirteen-year-old's classmates may be involved in sexual relationships; should they be? Society today dumps a whole lot of grown-up stuff onto young kids; and if you're that thirteen-year-old in a sexual relationship it's got to be more than you're ready for. At the same time, the kid who isn't doing what he thinks "everybody else is doing" may have the stress of feeling like he's not like his peers.

The four-year-old who is at a stage in development when much of the focus is on expanding the at-home world to include more of the outside world (like preschool), and learning about playing with peers, has to be missing something his brain needs if he's spending a lot of time doing things that aren't appropriate for his age. Similarly, if he's playing games with older siblings he's most likely up against someone who has the advantage of age over him.

With regard to girls who mature earlier than is considered, "average", one type of stress blamed for early maturity is a stressful home environment. It cannot possibly be good for a girl who has matured early but who lives under stress at home, and who isn't ready to "act like a grown-up", to be viewed (and treated) by peers (including young-teen boys) as "being all grown-up".

Another problem may be that adults so often underestimate the intelligence of children; and living life always being underestimated is, by itself, stressful and frustrating.

The point is, I suspect that one major cause of childhood obesity is that society too often grossly underestimates the intelligence of children while, at the same time, it too often overestimates the emotional maturity of children.

If one considers these potential sources of stress, and then factors in other sources of additional stress (such as a stressful home life, peer pressure, academic demands/challenges, and even the general insecurities of childhood/adolescence), it's not hard to realize how much stress today's children can live under. More significantly, it's not hard to imagine how today's kids may be so stressed out they crave the high-fat/high-carb meals and snacks that can make them feel less tired or frazzled.

What could be making this confounding issue as challenging as it appears to be is that the adults "in charge of" solving the (parents, teachers, anyone concerned with childhood obesity) don't think to ask themselves if THEY are responsible. Rather, they take the easy route of pointing a finger at fast food (or at parents of overweight kids they believe "must not know about healthy eating").

I really think it's time adults in society stop looking at kids who appear to "just be growing up faster these days", and stop passively accepting what "how it seems kids are".

It's the responsibility of adults to define what childhood is supposed to be - not allowing what children "seem to be" to define it. It's also the responsibility of adults to make sure children have a childhood while they're still too emotionally immature to be able to deal with more grown-up things (even if "more grown-up" is only a ten-year-old doing things he shouldn't be doing until he's thirteen).

It's only my guess, but I think if people want to solve the problem of childhood obesity (and the Type II Diabetes no child should ever develop) they need to stop blaming fast food, and stop assuming that all parents of overweight kids don't know anything about healthy eating.

Children in recent years have increasingly been put on the fast track to growing up far earlier than the developing human being ever should be. To make it worse, it's now known that if a child doesn't receive the right kind of nurturing in his first three years (when his brain synapses are forming) it can affect how well his immune system and stress response system function for the rest of his life. If it's true that more of today's babies and toddlers are being pushed to develop/do things for which they aren't quite developmentally ready, that could potentially mean that they'll have an even more challenging time dealing with a stress response system that, perhaps, goes into action under circumstances that would otherwise not cause a stress response.

I know I could be wrong, but I tend to think people today seem to be looking for solutions to the childhood obesity issue in the wrong places. I don't think educating parents and children about the value and goodness of vegetables and fresh fruits nearly addresses what may potentially be the real root of the rise in childhood obesity; because while I know there there are, of course, some parents or children who are ignorant about healthy eating, I don't believe that the majority are that ignorant.

Technology In Schools Today

There is no doubt that greater technology in elementary schools offers children some educational advantages, as well as the chance to have technology as much a part of their world as it is of the larger world. Whether or not greater technology is beneficial to the actual process of learning may be a separate consideration.

There's the external process involved with learning (someone shares information about something with someone else), and the internal process of learning (the activities of the brain and any formation of brain connections).

I think the basic, external, learning process is the same as always. Someone gives information to the child. I think technology has offered ways of reinforcing, building on, or supplementing that basic learning; but, in general, I think the foundation of basic learning remains the same. So, in this way, greater technology is beneficial.

On the other hand, I can't help but believe that there are probably different things going on in the brain as a result of technology's role in learning because it is clear that someone who began learning long after technology was in full swing does things differently. Whether this is good or not is not clear.

Consider math, for example. I learned the basics before computers were available to everyone. Calculators existed but would never be allowed in school. Today, if I'm in a work setting, doing some kind of math calculations, I'll do the work the way it is done in business these days, using technology.

If I'm working on personal finances, though, I do something kind of bizarre: I'll use the computer to do the math. I'll check it once by re-doing it. Then I'll check the computer's work by using a personal calculator, and check the calculator's work by doing it a second time. At this point, you'd think I'd be pretty comfortable, but I'm not.

I will then proceed to check the double-checked work of both the computer and the calculator by doing the math myself (complete with paper and pencil). I should at least skip the double-checking of the computer and calculator, but no matter how often I do this I keep thinking that double-checking will be enough. Its as if I discover each time that I cannot reach a level of confidence in the results until I check one more time. In my head I trust the computer the first or second time, depending on room for human error. Every time I have a big calculating job to do I think the computer will suffice. Every time I keep discovering I can't feel confident in it or the calculator. Its only after I do my own calculations that I can have "mental peace".

If I'm in work setting I do it "the work way". I figure if the machines make an error it isn't my doing because in the work setting today people choose to "take the risk".

A young person raised since computers have been in homes and schools doesn't have this "issue". They take for granted the computer does a better job than a human, and they trust it. I'm comfortable with technology. In my head I certainly trust that it is more likely to do it's math correctly than I, a human, will. Still, I'm not able to overcome that feeling I learned from the time I first learned to do math - that feeling of seeing the process, knowing I have included the correct numbers, being the one to do the calculating, and seeing that all the numbers add up.

I can only assume that my brain learned some need to be involved with the process of the calculation in order to reach that sense of confidence and "mental peace" with the results. I don't have OCD in any area of my life, and decades ago there would have been no technology to cause me to wonder if I have it when it comes to doing my own calculations. I can only assume that because my generation was taught with this ongoing, ever-present, do-it-yourself, approach and drill, drill, drill; that's how my brain learned to be most comfortable.

I'm not sure if the way children today learn is a good thing or a bad thing. Its certainly a current thing. Children today are less likely to develop the issue I have that makes me appear to have OCD when it comes to doing calculations. (I was "so-not" ever a math wiz, so it isn't that I've built my confidence in my math ability. I was nicely above average in math ability, but math was never my favorite subject.)

When it comes to the internal part of the learning process I think children today must have something different going on. Whether people like me have such solid "manual" skills they tend to have more confidence in themselves, or whether people like me have our brains hopelessly wired in an obsolete way, I don't know.

There is little doubt that greater technology offers a world of learning experience to students of all ages. There is no doubt that with each new era comes the need for new types of skills. There was a time when people needed to know how to make their own soap. My great-grandmother's generation needed to be skilled at using a washboard. My mother knew to how to sterilize cloth diapers, while - for good or ill - I never dealt with a dirty cloth diaper in my life. My generation came along at a time when so many life skills, once required for day-to-day living, were no longer necessary. Will today's elementary-school student even need the math skills I needed to learn?

There is another side to this, though. The math skills that are so ingrained in me are a part of my day-to-day living. When I do my grocery shopping I keep a pretty accurate running total of what I'm spending in my head. If I get a ad from a bank, advertising a new type of account or a new credit card I have a fairly complete picture of the costs involved just by seeing the rates and requirements outlined in the large print. Whether shopping for car insurance, a mortgage, or a dental plan, the math skills I've used all my life offer me that immediate overview of costs without doing much calculating. If I decide to keep track of the calories or fat I eat, convert a recipe, or manage my time, that lifetime of using my own math skill makes life easier. More significantly, there is the possibility that a "use it or lose it" principle applies to matters of cognitive skill. There is also the question of whether use of one's own math skill results in secondary neurological goings-on that are beneficial in ways not presently understood.

There is no doubt that greater technology is beneficial in a number of ways. The question is whether it is also a double-edged sword. I'm certainly not of the one-room schoolhouse era, but my elementary school education involved an old school, books, paper, pencils, a blackboard, and, of course, My Weekly Reader. It was not a luxurious education, but it was a solid one. There was no elaborate technology to create the impression of a great education even when the education was only mediocre. Some would say that the lack of that elaborate technology was what made the education I got, in fact, mediocre.

Greater technology is clearly beneficial in it's own way. Whether that way is the most crucial way, in terms of developing human potential, is something we cannot yet know.

The Myth That Kids Who Aren't Hit or Aren't Punished Don't Respect Parents and Won't Behave Well

The Myth That Kids Who Aren't Hit or Aren't Punished Don't Respect Parents and Won't Behave Well

How Long Should You Leave Your Baby to Cry

How Long Should You Leave Your Baby to Cry