Do you really want an obedient child?

[bluesuperted]

Food for thought following on from some recent press articles re: so-called challenging behaviour of babies, toddlers and children, and from the threads about the natural and oft-stifled curiosity of toddlers in overly structured classes.

I have to say happy, compassionate and curious are characteristics I'd definitely like to see in my child. Not so bothered about doormat ;)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/19/are-obedient-children-a-good-thing?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

[????]

As in all these books there's always some sort of imaginery polarisation, in this case "obedient" or "not obedient"...instead of the reality of somewhere between the two depending on a whole host of factors and variables....sells plenty of books/newspapers though

[womanofdulwich]

But some children are so much more compliant/easier to handle arent they? My " challenging" son has always been hard work for his parents- but he will do well and be a leader of men. But there is no way he would have a younger sibling- we could not manage it. Hard for his older sibling too.

[Kes]

mm, didn't much like that article, children should certainly be happy, curious and compassionate, but I don't think this is achieved by just sitting back and allowing them to do whatever they want. Emotions are sudden, and overwhelming to small children and they need help to learn to recognise what is happening and control it, I don't mean that they should be emotionless and cold, (as ???? says more people find a middle ground)but to be driven blindly by emotion as an adult, flying into a rage or needing to do/have somthing that very minute could be very risky. Parents need to help thir children in this, just as you'd help them learn to cross the road.

If a child can not sit still for a class, then don't take them to one, easy. Some kids will be happy to sit and watch if it's only for a short period and it's unfair for them to be disrupted by others running all over the place. You wouldn't expect a kid in a playground to be stopped from playing because another parent felt their kid had the right to sit in silence at the top of the slide for 30 minutes!

If clases expect toddlers to sit still for half an hour then no one should go to them! I've not come across any like that but maybe they exist.

I guess it depends on what you see as your ultimate aim in raising your child - to produce a person who is driven by their inner nature and to hell with what society/everyone else thinks, or a person who is aware of their inner nature and the rules of society and able to use this understanding make these things work for them. I'd go with the latter, I like other people, I do care what they think, I don't think that makes me a doormat.

[Saffron]

Kes, not sure I follow your objections? No where does the article say that happy, curious, and compassionate are achieved by just sitting back and allowing them to do whatever they want. What the article does suggest is that some of the behaviour that is viewed and bad and therefore punishable is only a natural part of a child's curiosity; therefore the parents' response should be to channel that behaviour in helpful directions rather than to punish it.

Also, no where is it written that children need to sit still to learn. Perhaps it's all the children sitting still in classes who are disrupting the learning of children who want to get up and move around. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

There's never just one right way of doing things. Just because a majority do it one way doesn't make it right or even desirable. A truly good teacher knows how to accommodate all her/his students, not just the orthodox ones. Personally I would try to keep my children out of classes where I feel the teacher isn't good, but not all parents have that luxury sadly. xx

[dulwichgirl2]

Kes., you are so right. This is the mature approach and the approach of someone who understands how the world works. It isn't fair to give a child the idea that the world revolves around his or her way of doing things, if that way is extreme. It isn't fair to disrupt the majority of children for the selfish requirements of one, either at classes (disruptive child) or at the top of slide (contemplative introspective child). It all boils down to there being a time and place for different actions and it is our job as parents to teach our children what is appropriate and when. Telling them their way is acceptable at all times is not doing them any favours.

So glad to read someone writing sense and not getting on the "out of control is so great and expressive" bandwagon.

Edited for clarity

[Saffron]

The article doesn't actually say that you should give them their way at all times. xx

[Sanne Panne]

There's a lot of room for autonomy and exploration (and indeed challenging behaviour) that can be accommodated within the boundaries of not hitting other kids or spitting on the table etc... And what is this thing with the Brits versus the French, wasn't the last war quite a while ago? ;)

[bluesuperted]

Saffron - as usual you speak a lot of sense :) Absolutely agree about learning too - all children respond differently to all types of learning. I am a bookworm and love nothing more than writing out notes from a book, but I sense my son will learn better from doing, I could be wrong, but I hope I will be able to provide him with ways that match his skills/strengths as far as possible as he develops. Teachers are currently trained to teach children using a wide variety of delivery styles, because all learn differently (some are kinaesthetic, some are visual, some are aural - some a mixture of the three). My husband who teaches 11 year olds always has to (and indeed wants tom as it makes for betterv lessons all round) plan with all types of learner in mind. If this is the case at 11, it is even more the case for toddlers and preschoolers!

Kes - I found the article interesting because it questions mainstream, Supernanny-style parenting ideas and promotes a gentler approach which is often not discussed more widely (e.g. Alfie Kohn's work). I think being a parent means constantly reflecting on our behaviour, the environment our child is in (as it suggests in the article) and of course what the child is doing, feeling etc. My 'ultimate aim' is actually to raise a compassionate and kind child/person, who is happy and secure through his life and to help him achieve emotional literacy (including considering the needs of others, of course, that's a massive part of emotional intelligence!) through explanations that match his abilities and cognition levels at the time.

Dulwichgirl2: I also didn't see the part of the article that suggested out of control is great or that we should say all behaviour is acceptable at all times.

[cuppa tea]

I don't think the article was saying that kids be allowed to carry on and do whatever they want with no limitations whatsoever....that's neglect. Noone has, or should have, that level of freedom. I think it was questioning the ever popular 'baby-training, toddler taming' approach that is becoming pretty popular. If a child is always compliant to the whims of the adults around them, this is not necessarily healthy. There is a way of showing kids how to be kind and compassionate to others and still finding ways to have their own needs met, without using fear of punishment to do it. I thought it was a refreshing article.