Bringing Up Geeks

There were a couple of recent threads on bringing up teens at Real Learning. Once was Favorite Books on Parenting Teens and one was Teens and Technology. One of the books recommended in the threads was Bringing Up Geeks, by Marybeth Hicks, so I requested it from the library.

So far, I like it. Books about setting limits generally tend to make me cross and resistant. But Hicks' good energy and "this is what I do" worked for me -- like listening to one of those opinionated, high-spirited moms at the football game or the homeschool meeting. She doesn't seem to come from a fearful or punitive mindset, but a practical, positive one. Her four kids go to school, so she is talking from that perspective. Some of the things she mentions have simply never come my way -- I've never had to fight battles about Bratz dolls, for instance, or debate whether my 9 year old should have a cell phone. Others were much more relevant.

The case the book makes is that (1) parents have bought into the "culture of cool" and though they're uncomfortable with the excesses of this culture, they fear handicapping their children socially and so they go along with it (2) parental standards WILL inevitably exile your kids to some extent from the Cool Culture, and therefore categorize them as "geeks" (3) that's OK because the Cool Cult is a fake construct, not the real world anyway, and not a good goal to work towards.

She redefines the word "geek" in a positive way (as the maxim goes, Be nice to geeks, you'll probably work for one someday) which is appealing to me because our family has always tended to use "geek" as a code word not for dysfunction but for quirky, INTERESTING people who have the character to swim against the tide in different ways..... we try to see the traces of "geekiness" in even the most banal "cool" person. Really, they're there if you look for them hard enough!

Basically, she sets the guideline for rebelling against the implicit expectations of the social game for young people nowadays. In some ways this book would fit alongside "Hold on to Your Kids" and "A Tribe Apart", two books about family and peer culture that I read a couple of summers ago. HOTYK is about the psychology of the peer-dependent child. A Tribe Apart is a riveting journalistic account of several "ordinary" children and their transition from pre-teen to high school senior. The "tribe" culture is a desperate one -- its undeniable radiance is a sort of radioactivity, a phosphorescence of active decomposition. Bringing Up Geeks basically makes a firm, practical stand for strong parenting which almost of necesssity means conscious detachment from the peer underworld and its devouring demands.

A related article I just came across at Christopherus: Changing Clothes

Also, I wrote in the past about "Weird homeschoolers" and enculturation.and Following the Compass.

Links: Hold On To Your Kids

Some interesting posts that came up when I was looking up Hold on to Your Kids:

• Parenting Over- Scheduled Teens
• Winning at Parenting Through Trust
• Building the Bond

This quote, from the last link, reminds me of this article Who's in Control? that I've mentioned before.

So why do children vie for the alpha position in the family? Children do not consciously decide to become alpha. It is a deeply embedded instinct that comes over them when they are feeling too insecure or vulnerable. Feeling vulnerable is often too much to bear for children so they instinctively try to take over in an attempt to feel safer and stronger.

It is easy to misread this behavior as something that it is not. As parents we are required to see children attempting to control things or ‘run the show’ as being insecure and vulnerable not as being bossy or manipulative. These children need their parents to take the rightful lead in the family. When parents assume the alpha role their children can settle back into their role of dependency on the parent and natural order within the family is restored.

Also, from leading the way for children:

Here are some ways Gordon suggests that parents assume or strengthen their role as alpha in their family:

a) Reduce the amount of physical and emotional separation between a parent and a child. If children experience too much separation, their brains become alarmed and their own alpha instincts to take charge kick in (more in my next article, “The Alpha Child”). The more a child displays alpha tendencies the less they are receptive to being guided by a parent.

b) Parents need to assume the responsibility for the relationship and for preserving the connection. It is up to us, as parents, to give our children an anchor to hold on to…. US.

c) It is important to tell our children that we are there for them and to come to us if they need help. When we encourage children to look to us for guidance and support they more readily attach to us and accept our parental authority.

d) Avoid doing or saying anything that cannot be backed up. Not being able to follow through with what we say weakens our alpha role and throws our leadership skills into question. An example of this would be insisting that a child go to sleep immediately. Given no one can fall asleep on demand, a more effective alpha statement would come after normal night time rituals and may sound like, “It’s bedtime now. Look at a book in bed until your eyes feel sleepy”.

e) Finally avoid setting children up for taking care of us. Children are not designed to lead their parents (alpha reversal). The less alpha instincts are triggered in children the more they will act as children and be receptive to being parented.

Little Children

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. Mark 10

I just thought it was interesting that Pope Pius XI, in Divini Illius Magistri (On Christian Education) opens with this same passage that Charlotte Mason referred to so many times in her life.

that divine Master who while embracing in the immensity of His love all mankind, even unworthy sinners, showed nevertheless a special tenderness and affection for children, and expressed Himself in those singularly touching words: "Suffer the little children to come unto Me,"

Near the beginning of Home Education, Charlotte Mason writes:

"Suffer the little children to come unto Me," says the Saviour, as if that were the natural thing for the children to do, the thing they do when they are not hindered by their elders. And perhaps it is not too beautiful a thing to believe in this redeemed world, that, as the babe turns to his mother though he has no power to say her name, as the flowers turn to the sun, so the hearts of the children turn to their Saviour and God with unconscious delight and trust.

That's really all I wanted to write, but Paddy was so vehement this morning about wanting to continue reading through his First Communion catechism book with me "please, just one more lesson, one more!!!!" that I have to think that there is some truth to that idea of delight and trust.

I remember when I was a small child, God seemed everywhere. I didn't actually realize that the Presence was God until later. I just was aware of this quiet vastness. It wasn't anything like a Sunday School lesson (which were too often twaddly), but it was around when I listened to my mother read Bible stories, and when I was playing or thinking.

Perhaps that sense is one of the things that education can help bring out and develop, or else whittle away at, scandalize or destroy. Certainly one big responsibility. I couldn't help laughing when I was reading a Calvin comic to Paddy and Calvin's dad said to his mom, "When I was a child I thought my parents knew what they were doing.... I probably wouldn't have been in such a hurry to grow up if I had known it would be mostly ad-libbing." Paddy didn't know what that meant, but I knew exactly.

Maybe a good time to link to this "Impossible" novena (posted on Studeo) that started on March 25, the feast day of the Annunciation, and goes on till Christmas. I always thought I'd have a hard time raising kids successfully, and any success on my part has to be attributed to wild grace and not to anything about me. But that suffices... God alone suffices.

sound advice

Someone on a Charlotte Mason list linked to this article called Concrete Problems at Parent's Review Archives. It's sort of a panel discussing common upbringing questions and there is all kinds of good sense in it. Here's a bit from the introduction that I think needs to be kept in mind whenever talking about parenting and homeschooling questions:

....none of us speak with the voice of infallibility, we are all learners, and we do not lay down rules of conduct, or a system of education, which each of us can go home and then and there apply to our children. Alas, our task as parents and as child trainers is not so easy. We have to have certain true educational principles which we must master, digest, and quietly work out in all our homes in a reverent and prayerful spirit.

I am afraid that some among our members do what we are always urging that the children should not be allowed to do, viz., swallow raw material without digesting it. Someone will advocate "cold baths," and they will at once, regardless of the child's physical condition, previous habits, etc., etc., go home and then and there start the practice. Someone else will speak in praise of certain gymnastics and at once a fashion and a cult is started for them without due thought and weighty consideration.

System vs Method, and the limitations of habits

From Some Preliminary Considerations: in Charlotte Mason's Home Education.

System––the observing of rules until the habit of doing certain things, of behaving in certain ways, is confirmed, and, therefore, the art is acquired––is so successful in achieving precise results, that it is no wonder there should be endless attempts to straiten the whole field of education to the limits of a system.

She goes on to say that though it is tempting to do this, and would be fine if a human were a machine, humans are not machines and cannot be educated mechanistically. There has to be more to education than just what it would take to train an accountant or secretary, or a "lady of society".

I've read about CM's distinction between "methods" and "system" many times, and never noticed it quite that way before, but this has to do with the limitations of habits. It seems she is saying that mechanical habits, useful as they may be, are not sufficient. This is helpful to me, both in measuring what role habits SHOULD take, and what shouldn't be expected from them.

I just recently read an article in the old Parents' Reviews, from 1902, called Limitations of Theory. It makes somewhat the same point.

I believe strongly in the importance of cultivating right habits, and in the power they exert over us; but sometimes I have felt that there was a danger of putting habit almost in the place of God--of thinking that everything can be accomplished by careful training, and that a child can simply, by care and watchful oversight, be turned out a great and good character. Valuable as habit is, it cannot renew the heart, and the mother who trusts entirely to her training is in danger of sad disappointment. It seems to me that those who place too great importance on habit run the risk of leaving God no room to work.
... To change an old saying, we might say, "Habit is a good servant, but a bad master." What is done merely through habit is more or less mechanical, and there is a danger of want of adaptation to surroundings in those who are too much bound by it.

And I already quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia which reiterates this:

At the same time that habits grow, attention has to be paid to their dangers, and the child must not be allowed to become a mere automaton. Habits of reflection and attention, together with determination and strength of will, will enable the child to control, direct, and govern other habits.

Reflection and attention....similar to vigilance for mothers, perhaps.

In School Education Charlotte Mason remarks repeatedly that while habits form the physical self in many ways, ideas feed the mind. She also says that every habit has its origin in an idea. This is something I want to think over. Also, Dr Carpenter too wrote about the limitations of habits. I'm going to type that out for a separate post.

trying to reach higher ground

Photo taken by Clare

When I was making this list of Habits from CM's Home Education, for children under the age of nine, I was thinking that any time we talk about habits for children, we are necessarily talking about something required of the mother as well. So maybe that's part of the reason I tend to get bogged down quickly whenever I read CM's thoughts on habits. I get good things out of them, but at the same time I start feeling discouraged.

More than just getting discouraged, I get skeptical. I wonder if her ideas are "permanent principles" -- are they still relevant today? Some of them? All of them? In what way? Do I want my individual, unique children "habitized?" Do I want myself to be that way?

I will have to try to deal with the last two questions some other time, but right now I'll try to deal with the first couple. I notice that I find it too easy when I'm trying to sort through Charlotte Mason's ideas to either (1) resort to banalities -- that is, basically just repeat and restate her thoughts (2) throw away the whole thing in discouragement (3) get unhappy as I read her books and then compare them with my quite different ways of doing things, and feel a kind of resentment towards my whole life and its seeming shortcomings; a resentment that becomes a near occasion for sins of anger and pride.

So I thought I'd try to think through that difficulty just a bit.

From what I understand, Charlotte Mason WAS speaking for her time -- she did it intentionally. In her time, she was trying to reframe the traditional ideas in such a way that they would be understandable to her educated contemporaries. She often spent a chapter critiquing a contemporary educationist, or comparing her school's ideas with those of a current philosopher or scientist.

She probably would expect us to do the same. She would stand by the principles she was employing, which she thought had eternal verity. But she did think the "Zeitgeist" or current state of thought needed to be taken into account. She thought there needed to be educators who would say things in terms that the people around them would understand, as St Paul spoke to the Greeks on Mars Hill. So this is part of her method -- she didn't expect it to be a static "system" with no flexibility or individuality of application.

There's also something else, that St Francis de Sales often spoke about. This is about the feeling you get when you are looking at a set of standards and see that you don't measure up to some of them. It can feel like a report card with a bunch of poor marks. However, when there is a path laid in front of us, even if we are on the very first stages of a journey and feel like we are taking a step backward for every two forward -- we do well to keep on OUR path. It doesn't really help to put on the mask of some saintly person and then try to become that person. Though well meant, it is not effective and can sometimes make a person stumble -- like David wearing the armor of King Saul. It is a sort of pretense. I know that, both from experience and intuitively.

In contrast, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to aspire to become more like that saint.... that's different. It's like the child wearing a superhero costume or pretending to work like his Daddy. I don't know if you can see the difference. I can usually feel it in myself. Walking around rapt in admiration of a favorite saint or great person is usually ennobling. My father took his early fervent admiration of Albert Schweitzer and alchemized it into some excellent life choices. His life was not that much like Schweitzer's in the details (beyond the fact that they were both physicians who worked with indigenous peoples) but he took some of the best things about Schweitzer's life and principles and incorporated them into his life. This is not mask wearing, but a kind of inheritance.

Now to make my following point, I ask you to visualize the Candyland board : ). You have so many steps to go until the end. It would be cheating to take a shortcut. .... like search through the deck for all the good cards like some of my 4 year olds want to do. HOWEVER, sometimes you find yourself drawing the right card or landing on the right space and getting a real boost in your progress.

Or, the Gospel at mass today was about the crippled man let down through the roof. He was "behind" all the healthy people and blocked from Jesus, seemingly intractably, by the crowd jostling to hear the Teacher. A few minutes later his sins were forgiven and he was taking up his pallet and walking. Where you are at one point doesn't always predict where you will be in a given point in time.

This, I believe, is somewhat true of habits too. Just because you feel you are just barely starting out on the first steps of some endeavor, doesn't mean that you will stay way behind forever. St Francis de Sales was talking about spiritual progress but you can see the analogy with education and lots of other things. Say a 9 year old still doesn't read. That definitely doesn't mean he will always be 4 years behind his peer who learned to read at age 5. Often you see that within four months they will be equal and sometimes the late reader actually pulls ahead quickly. This is very often true with life things too. St Augustine at one point was a sinner and a heretic..... in a way, miles behind my grandmother, probably, as far as virtue and straight thinking and simple devotion went. Within a short space of time he was one of the greatest people and thinkers of his day and the following centuries. That doesn't minimize my grandmother's good qualities, or make it somehow fine for Augustine to keep being sinful and wrongheaded while he was being that way... it just means that the road is not always strictly sequential and step by step.

David Isaacs said that often if you get a fair start on one good habit you find some of the others following naturally. This seems to have some truth to it. So in some ways starting just one thing can sometimes provide that Candyland double card or short-cut. Flylady says that sometimes a clean shiny sink can make a difference in how the rest of the housekeeping goes. Reason for hope, there.

Another way to think about it is that whenever you "think upon" what is good and wholesome and true and beautiful and try to plant the seed in your own life, you never know what good things might sprout and what fruits may be produced. There are some things in CM's writings that stuck in my heart and helped me immensely. If other things in her books haven't yet struck me in a way that can allow them to help my life, it doesn't mean it was useless to read them at all.

And finally, one of those links I mentioned on habits mentioned that when you are trying to replace a bad habit with a good one it's helpful to build on what you already have instead of try to pull something new out of yourself that you never had before. For me, it's helpful when I'm reading "challenging" books to glance at where I am already. It's usually not as bad as I think. Try it if you are a melancholic, easily discouraged person like me. Make it a discipline to gather your stock around you and take inventory. THEN decide what the next step ought to be from there. (horrible mixed metaphors -- to unite them let's say you take a look through your knapsack of handy possessions before you start on the next stage of your climb).

Lots of words! But good to have written out. I'm going to list some of the habits that CM thought were helpful for a mother to acquire. But I wanted to write this out first as a qualifier.

Attention, Motivation and the Prefrontal Cortex

Interesting ideas on attention and how it relates to motivation:

From Attention and Motivation: The Dana Guide

Motivation and attention are controlled by the prefrontal cortex, which is to the rest of the brain what a conductor is to the orchestra. The functions of the prefrontal cortex are elusive but critical and are often referred to as executive functions.

Some of what I read last year about attachment theory and how it relates to neurobiology seems to indicate that the development of the prefrontal cortex is partly influenced by early emotional experiences:

from Attachment Theory and the Brain

Bowlby (a doctor who did pioneer observational studies on infants isolated from their families by hospitalization) referred to that attachment behavioral system as if it were a physical part of the brain. Without the benefit of brain scans, Bowlby hypothesized that this was something hard-wired into the human brain. It turns out, that this was true.

What we have discovered is that the area, right behind the eyes, the orbital prefrontal cortex, is quite specialized in functions having to do with attachment. It turns out our brains are very social, and that the prefrontal cortex seems to be quite important in functions having to do with interpersonal relating. For example, that part of the brain is involved with emotion regulation, empathy, and facial recognition, just to name a few. We also know that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed at birth, and that the fully functioning prefrontal cortex of the parent helps to develop that section of the brain in the infant.

from Attachment Theory, Neurobiology and Psychopathology

Self-regulation seems to be one of the primary functions of the prefrontal cortex of the brain..... The ability to handle stressful stimuli is a higher cognitive function of the brain.

Interpersonal relationships help a child’s brain simulate the same functions of his parent’s brain to organize its own processes and perceptions. A child’s self-regulation, including his nervous systems stems from the exchange of these interactions and attachments with his parents...... Parents become mirrors of their infant’s emotions and the architects for the development of the brain. Repeated experiences become encoded in memory and biological responses. These experiences create expectations and anticipation, and will be used as mental models to establish the survival mechanisms for a child. This complex orchestration becomes the primitive source of a child and adult’s behavior.

There have been many studies that have shown that children raised in emotionally deprived circumstances actually show atrophy in the prefrontal cortex comparable to that of physical trauma to the area. This article, Research Claims Children's Brain Function Affected by Poverty, says:

"Kids from lower socioeconomic levels show brain physiology patterns similar to someone who actually had damage in the frontal lobe as an adult," said Robert Knight, director of the institute and a UC Berkeley professor of psychology. "We found that kids are more likely to have a low response if they have low socioeconomic status, though not everyone who is poor has low frontal lobe response."....The researchers suspect that stressful environments and cognitive impoverishment are to blame, since in animals, stress and environmental deprivation have been shown to affect the prefrontal cortex.

My family has often been below the poverty line as have many other families I know whose children are by no means cognitively impaired. So my guess is that this study's results has more to do with the "stressful environments" and emotional and language impoverishment than with anything to do directly with one's income.

I rather worry about these studies that associate poverty with cognitive deprivation because often the "solution" seen as necessary is cognitive enrichment in a preschool, which it seems to me would exacerbate the original problem by taking the children out of their families and putting them in a mostly artificial environment. The only early intervention programs that have shown long range success have been ones where the parents were closely involved in the program and the intervention was done in the context of the home.

The article goes on to mention that some high-income kids can fall into the exact same pattern of impaired prefrontal cortical function. So again, it probably has nothing to do with income per se but rather with upbringing.

Many studies on children from orphanages or hospitalized children show the same impaired function of the higher executive processing that takes place in the prefrontal cortex. Here's just one of many you can find, Orphanage experience alters brain function:

Nearly all the children were in the normal range of intelligence and showed age-appropriate skills in reasoning ability. However, more than half of the children showed extreme difficulties in paying attention to verbal information.

"When children had to listen to words, remember a task and act quickly, many of them had a hard time," explains Pollak, who adds that these multiple tasks are similar to the ones children must perform in the classroom. Although the children had difficulty on this test of attention, Pollak says they didn't display other behavioral symptoms of ADHD, such as hyperactivity or impulsiveness.

"The behaviors that relate to attention are linked to the pre-frontal cortex and motor skills are controlled by the cerebellum. Both of these regions are the last parts of the brain to develop and can continue to develop for years after birth," explains Pollak. "If children are in neglectful situations, these parts of the brain may not receive the ideal amount of stimulation for healthy development."

The article goes on to mention that to a large extent, later upbringing (say, adoption into a loving family) can make a huge difference in these original deficits.

There is an interesting series on executive function at About Kids Health. Executive function is the modern term for the regulative functions of the brain including attention, motivation, impulse control and emotional response.

How do we learn to think? How does an easily distracted baby become an adult who can evaluate a problem, make a plan to solve it, and carry out the plan? Executive function – the conscious control of what we think and do – takes years to develop fully and affects many different facets of children’s mental development, from their understanding of other people’s points of view to their ability to focus on a task.

One more article: Is Attention Related to Motivation?

In our work with teachers, we frequently ask, "In your experience, what are the most common impediments to student achievement in your classrooms?" Almost without fail, at the top or near the top of the list is the big "M" word: MOTIVATION. Asked to elaborate, teachers cSo what does this have to do with attention? It is easy for most of us to pay attention to things that are really interesting or exciting to us. But it is difficult for most of us to pay attention to things that are not.

While reading through all these articles and several more, I started to think of Charlotte Mason's insistence on full attention as a prerequisite for learning. Most of today's conventional wisdom seems to indicate that to increase attention, you should focus on what interests the child (or try to foster interest -- the last article in this list has some tips for doing that).

But it suddenly occurred to me, partly because of my own experience with my kids, that it works a bit the other way too. A child is more likely to be interested in something if he has given it his full attention in the first place. Charlotte Mason was inclined to think of this willingness to attend as a sort of habit. It was to be supported by giving the child ONLY things that were interesting and worthwhile in their own right.... things of the natural world and the best that has been thought and said, in the form of books. In that way, the habit of attention would not be betrayed by an unworthy object.

She often talked about how the children would become intensely interested in their often quite challenging readings. It strikes me that if attention and motivation develop in the same places of the brain, that probably one place to look if motivation seems to be lacking is in the amount of attention that the child is paying to the reading.

Going back to the bits about the prefrontal cortex being developed by intimate stable relationships with parents or other primary caregivers..... I don't think Charlotte Mason said anything specifically about this but a lot of what she said seemed to imply that she thought in terms of safety and stability in the early years, and developing relations with the outside world based upon that foundation.

Those things build a sort of scaffold or pattern model for advances in maturity. Now most of the articles acknowledged that children vary from each other in temperament (and if you have cognitive disabilities like my 9 year old, that throws another element into the mix; the prefrontal cortex could actually be physiologically injured and part of the job of education would be helping insofar as possible to heal and restore).

A child with a very sensitive temperament may find normal things scary and scary things almost unbearable, and so might show some signs of insecure attachment in the early years. But reasonably competent (it doesn't have to be PERFECT) parenting can still help with drawing the child past its immaturity level into a higher level of confidence and competence. Aidan had some attachment issues in his first couple of years because of the amount of time he spent in the hospital in pain, and also because he didn't learn to talk and understand until relatively late. Time and patience has done much. He still has episodes and is challenging in various ways, but he's made a lot of progress.

Following the King's High Road

I just finished reading Charles Williams' book Many Dimensions -- he was a Christian writer, a friend of CS LEwis's and a member of the Inklings. Towards the end of the book he quotes John Braxton as saying:

Attribuat igitur Rex legi, quod Lex attribuit ei,videlicet dominationem et imperium. Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas, et non Lex.

He translates this as

"Therefore let the king attribute to the law that which the law attributes to him, namely, domination and power. For where the will rules and not the law is no king."

From what I understand, the context is British constitutional development -- this was the thought process that gave rise to the Magna Charta in England. It reminded me of Charlotte Mason who wrote much about the role of authority and how it relates to the role of parents.

During the summer I was blogging about Charlotte Mason's ideas on Habits. I planned to continue during the year, but as is typical, I got caught up in the practical details of homeschooling and couldn't keep both balls in the air at the same time. But going through Dorothy Canfield Fisher's Montessori ideas and seeing how they overlapped with some of CM's thoughts on child-raising made me get out my scuffed old copy of Home Education.

Also the Real Learning board has been hosting some discussions of habits in their various aspects: habits for kids, for teens, for the household, and for moms. It seems to me that perhaps the Ordinary Season between Christmas and Lent is a good time to think about these things. So I wanted to pick up the CM thoughts focusing mainly on her Volume 1 which focuses on children under the age of 9. This intersects nicely, it seems to me, with the Dorothy Canfield Fisher focus on children of preschool age.

Charlotte Mason talks about obedience in much more depth, and so it will probably come up again, but in the meantime, it's important to remember that we are talking about obedience in its highest sense, and that there are perils in trying to train mechanical, unreasonable obedience. Humans are not animals, not slaves, and they are not cogs in somebody else's system of order; Immanuel Kant, who got some other things wrong, got it right in saying:

"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only."

I tend to be a rebel, temperamentally and naturally, as a melancholic (and as half Scottish Celt, as well). My first question when faced by a simple command or statement is always "Why should I?" or "Why should it be so?" This can manifest as both a strength AND a weakness. That's probably why I usually get reflexively stopped in my tracks whenever I see the word "obedience". On the other hand, say the words "loyalty" and "fidelity" and my heart rings. But in some ways, they are the same concepts at their core.

When I first read what Charlotte Mason said about the nobility of obedience, it came together as it never had before. I didn't have to impose servility on myself or on my children. Mothering was not a power struggle -- me asserting my will over that of my small, beautiful children.

Obedience was loyalty to the Good, True and Beautiful -- which can never be anything but expansive and ennobling. My only problem then was convincing my rather balky reason, will and body to fall into step together alongside of that glorious banner. ... and of course, to make clear to my children the high dignity of doing so and the fact that they are fellow soldiers or adventurers or questers after Beauty and Truth; not slaves.

Obedience is a virtue only to the extent that it is free. Perhaps if you think about it in terms of Pride and Dignity and the Chivalrous Temper, it makes this clearer. I think of King David, certainly a great man, whose "delight was in the law of the Lord". He did not think it was undignified or demeaning to follow another.

I mentioned this part once before on the blog. ...When I was reading the Catholic Catechism I found that the etymology of "obey" is from "audire" meaning to hear or hearken to. Here is Proverbs 22:17, in the same vein:

Incline thy ear, and hear the words of the wise: and apply thy heart to my knowledge.

In this respect, it can be the highest of human acts. There is something intrinsic to me, in that connection between listening -- hearkening -- and "logos" -- word, or reason. You have to listen in order to hear words. And the obedience bit is where one's will comes in; will implies voluntariness, as Charlotte Mason says:

let him (the child) know what a noble thing it is to be able to make himself do, in a minute, and brightly, the very thing he would rather not do.

My task as a mother got much easier when I realized that my authority as a mother was not a matter of my superior power of intelligence or physical strength (that seemed like tyranny to me) or even my superior virtue (because I, being older, had sinned more than my children). It was my role, insofar as I represented the Good. I had to represent something bigger than myself "what is right". It is a high responsibility but we are placed in that role by virtue of being parents. We all have to grow into it to some extent, I think.

Charlotte Mason writes in Home Education (Some Moral Habits)

Children must have the Desire to Obey.––It is only in proportion as the will of the child is in the act of obedience, and he obeys because his sense of right makes him desire to obey in spite of temptations to disobedience––not of constraint, but willingly––that the habit has been formed which will, hereafter, enable the child to use the strength of his will against his inclinations when these prompt him to lawless courses.

It is said that the children of parents who are most strict in exacting obedience often turn out ill; and that orphans and other poor waifs brought up under strict discipline only wait their opportunity to break into license. Exactly so; because, in these cases, there is no gradual training of the child in the habit of obedience; no gradual enlisting of his will on the side of sweet service and a free will offering of submission to the highest law: the poor children are simply bullied into submission to the will, that is, the wilfulness, of another; not at all, 'for it is right'; only because it is convenient.

If you notice, this implies that (1) the child's growing abilities to reason and will must be directed towards doing what is right and (2) that the parents and those in authority are entrusted with using their ability to lead in the way that is best for the children themselves. You don't want a child who disobeys whenever there is no one to look.

This is what Dorothy Canfield Fisher is saying, too ( I quoted her on that before). She points out that adults (hopefully) don't refrain from stealing or hurting simply because they are afraid they will go to prison. She points out that we don't want the obedience that would make things easy for a dictator like Hitler. We want free, reasoning consent to what is right.

The parents and the children should both be doing what is right. Their roles are not oppositional; they should be aimed in the same direction. The bigger role in one sense belongs to the parents -- to show the beauty and dignity of obedience to good things and that parents, too, are subject to what is right and ought to resist what is wrong.

Obedience is dignified by its very nature IF freely chosen and directed towards the right. Our obedience is a trust; it does not give us permission to do what is wrong. Similarly, and for the very same reason, authority is a trust. Think about it this way -- as Bob Dylan said, "You gotta serve somebody..." and there is solid truth in that. The person who does everything to please himself is a slave to whatever he is striving to please ... his appetites, his personal temperament. A person who does something only because he fears what will happen if he doesn't is a servant to fear or aversion.

Commanding the Waves, and Setting a Course

I've been meaning to link all the recent posts on Dorothy Canfield Fisher and her Montessori Manual together in one post, so here we go:

1. Retreat to Quiet for Little Children
2. Human Dignity for Children
3. Avoiding Near Occasions
4. Reasons Behind the Rules
5. Wild Irritability
6. Wise, Harmless and Beneficial Actions

One more thing came up in my thoughts while I was pulling this together, so I'm putting it here because it seems important in tying everything else together. It's easy to read parenting books, especially ones that are idealistic in some way, and feel like you've really missed the boat and might as well give it up .... things just aren't ever going to be much better in your house, because you didn't start right and you keep failing every day. So here's the thought.


Families are a "Growth" Model

"To reach something good it is very useful to have gone astray, and thus acquire experience."

- Saint Teresa of Avila (1515-1582)

I sometimes wish someone had told me earlier in my years of being a mother that temporary personal issues and difficulties aren't fatal. (My mom did tell me by example and story, but I didn't listen, and this turned out to be one of those very Mistakes that Aren't Fatal).

In fact, one HUGE advantage in parenting is the amount of time you have and the amount of chances you have to get it RIGHT. Like Montessori education, it is quite self-correcting.

Families are "growth" models -- unlike a machine, which is always in danger of breaking down, families are like organisms, in which the task is to maintain and optimize and clear the way for health and life. (I actually did read that in a Mary Pride book and it was SO helpful to me -- I had read too many books about all the damage you could do to your kids by the wrong approach and it resulted in me savagely critiquing every single decision I made).

Families are growth models. If you see something going wrong, you will have occasion to correct it. You are expected to make course corrections. You know the song sung by the Irish Tenors, The Voyage:

Life is an ocean, love is a boat.
In troubled waters it keeps us afloat.
When we started the voyage
there was just me and you –
Now gathered around us we have our own crew.

Children are in "growth" mode, too. So the Montessorean principle is that it's better to work WITH the child's natural development than try to force it forward one way and push it back in another way, which is very difficult to do successfuly and if it is successful, isn't a good thing for the child in the long run.It will be sort of like the English king trying to command the waves, if the force is set against a natural and normal developmental strength or weakness of the child's. Dorothy Canfield Fisher, I think, is not talking about Super Parents or never making mistakes, but about general constructive principles and a habit on the mom's part to be the stronger, wiser of the two in a mother/child relationship. Or at least, I would imagine that is what she is saying, because that is what I think is true. Part of being stronger and wiser is the willingness to pick oneself up and try once more. Sometimes, that's ALL it comes down to, but if you can teach your children that lesson by example you've probably taught them one of the most important things they need to know.

With no maps to guide us we steered our own course.
We rode out the storms when the winds were gale force.
We sat out the doldrums in patience and hope.
Working together we learned how to cope.

Wise, Harmless and Beneficial Actions

Fourth -- Necessity for Constant Activity in Early Childhood

This might be a good time to mention that the bulk of the Montessori Manual by Dorothy Canfield Fisher that I have been talking about is actually a sequential series of Montessori -type activities that you can often approximate in your own home. So in a sense the whole book is about this positive "active" side of things which she mentions in this fourth point. The child's drive for active involvement is a powerful force towards the child's own development, she says, and it ought to be fostered and helped rather than discouraged. So:

The final lesson... is positiveness, as opposed to negativeness, in their lives. The craving for constant, unceasing activity in little children is intense. This is a normal and blessed instinct of their, which does more than anything to develop them. And the mother should constantly bear it in mind. Her attitude towards her little child should be as little negative as may be; she should set her grown-up wits incessantly to work to devise wise, harmless and beneficial actions for the child, not merely to forbid him unwise and harmful ones. And here the Montessori apparatus is of inestimable value....

This sort of explains itself. Different children have different activity levels but all need a rhythm of activity and material for their activity. Outdoors, books, toys, games, and crafts are all material; the child's engagement with them provides the activity. Charlotte Mason called it "setting their feet in a wide room". That link takes you to my idea of the "primary priorities". Look here, too, if you haven't already: My Rule of Six and Whence it Came (from Melissa at Here in the Bonny Glen, and she links to other versions, too).

What are your ideas for "wise, harmless, beneficial" activities?

(I like that description because it seems to parallel St Paul's "Finally whatever is true, whatever pure, whatever is just, whatever holy, whatever is amiable, whatever of good repute, think on these things". In a child's case, often, it is often DO or HEAR or SEE these things, since children learn so much from the tangible, in stories and songs and family or liturgical customs and hands-on materials).

The details will differ from family to family, and from child to child. There might be a family of athletes, who love games and physical excursion. Another family might love to study nature. Some families are bookish and enjoy discussions and pleasant, leisurely debates. Some are great at making things with their hands. Usually it's not so much having ENOUGH activities, as having too many possibilities, that makes it difficult!

If you're not sure where to start, start with where your family is now, what the parents love and love to share with others. Build and expand from there. If you get TOO expansive and feel confused and over your head, take a look at this excellent article on Simplifying Homeschooling. As it says it's a homeschooling article, but most of the ideas relate to parenting, too, in some way or other, especially since parenting and education are inextricably entwined even if you don't homeschool.

And properly speaking, all this "positive" activity that you provide or allow for your children IS what education is essentially about (along with conversations and your example in life and your closeness with your child). Even if the child goes to school at the conventional age, you still continue with your task of guiding and deepening his academic and other endeavors in life.

In the comments of an earlier post, Stephanie mentioned:

Anyway, do you think that in those first years, what the child is doing is gathering behavioral and reaction options? ....It seems to me that those first years are for forming the will. We give the child many ways of doing this, and every time the child acts upon his world, he learns what works and what doesn't.

Well ... if we arrange the child's world so that the near occasions are not part of his little equation, then do we not give the child good and stable habits on which to build? I've got a vision in my head of a very plump little child with a bucket, toddling around, gathering things up from what is available, and it is from this bucket he will draw things for the rest of his life.

In answer I wrote:

...There (seems to be) a very primary Habit of Expectation set up in a child by his treatment primary years PLUS his temperament. This has to do with attachment theory. If a child spends his first months and years in an atmosphere of affection, intimacy, respect -- I sort of visualize warm arms to start from and come back to, and a kind smile even in the tough moments, and a bit of challenge maybe personified by a dad's playful wrestling and teasing --(the child) will have a sort of habit of using that approach to filter things through.

This emphasis on the positive, active side of things that Mrs Fisher mentions in this fourth point about positive activity seems to indicate what we are doing these other things FOR. Here, Stephanie's visual of the little child on the beach is a truly evocative one. It brings to mind CM's "despise not, offend not,hinder not" the little children. Charlotte Mason talks about how when a little baby is just learning to walk we try to help him get where he wants to go in safety and freedom. We try to remove obstacles from in front of his little unsteady feet; we guide him tactfully away from the holes in the ground towards open spaces. There is that whole beach to explore, all those good things that are proper material for his new abilities and interests, that he can pick up and inspect and drop in his pail.

It is similar with very young children who are just getting their grounding in the world of customs and behavior. In general, "good" behavior -- participating in the "wise, harmless, and beneficial" -- is not just good because it's our duty, but it's our duty because it's good. As parents, it is our task to help our children realize the goodness of good things..... its delight. We give them basic support in choosing the better. We are not God, mostly certainly not, but in important ways we are inevitably His representatives and first apostles to our children, and He has delegated some of His power to us to "lead them not into temptation, but deliver them from evil".

A very good parenting book (though a bit difficult to read) is Daniel Siegel's "Parenting from the Inside Out." He says that a parent, because of being older and wiser, impresses upon a child a more adult and productive way of handling things than a child can pull out of his own tiny experience (and judgment that depends inevitably upon experience and reflection). It is perhaps a bit similar to the way Charlotte Mason recommends reading the best that has been thought and said. By reading such books and loving them we learn patterns of thought and expression that we so to speak grow into. By "reading" a mother's way of doing things and being in an intimate relationship with that mother, the child becomes part of a higher pattern of handling choices than he could access on his own. (This is why peer dependence is a scary thing, because immature children learn immature behavior patterns from each other, but that's definitely for a different post).


Summary:

• Children crave active engagement with the world and it is good for them developmentally.
• The task of the mother is to provide "wise, beneficial, and harmless" activities for them to engage in.
• There will be different types of activities and different types of parenting styles in different families.
• But there are some general things that most have in common.
• Children need access to a way of doing things that they partake of even as they grow into.
  

Possible Applications:

• Perhaps you could make a list of the activities that your family already enjoys doing? Are there more you could add (or do you have TOO many possibilities, so you need to make a list to prioritize the ones you think are most important or rewarding?)
• What is your family's natural routine in a day? Do you notice any time periods where the children seem bored and more likely to quarrel or complain or be unhappily idle? Can you (perhaps with your children) brainstorm ways to make these times more constructive and peaceful?
• Keep your lists and look at them in a month or a year. Even if you do nothing conscious to make them happen, lots of times you find that you have unconsciously steered your life in that direction. Or at least, that happens with me sometimes!

Something I need to work on:

• A notorious "loose" time for the kids where things are likely to get disorderly is when I stay too long over my time on the computer in the morning. Once in a while it isn't likely to cause major problems, but if I start getting into the habit the day often starts off on the wrong note.

I've enjoyed writing out all these (as you could probably tell by the length!) and hope some of you got something out of it too!

Montessori Manual: Wild Irritability

Next in the series of strategies from Dorothy Canfield Fisher's Montessori Manual (the book is available online).

Third -- The mother should make the most careful distinction between the conscious, willful action of a child and the sort of wild irritability which results in "naughty" actions, but which is the result itself of nervous fatigue, due to injudicious treatment.

I guess past posts, like this one, Retreat to Quiet, have already discussed this somewhat. But that one was more about the peaceful life in general, and why a certain rhythm is desirable for small children, and this one is more about the little upheavals that occur inevitably in any child's life. Dorothy Fisher says that even in Montessori classrooms --she mentions Casa dei Bambini where Dr Montessori actually worked---there is occasional naughtiness. There, a "naughty" child is treated as a "sick" child. ... he is put in a quiet corner, allowed all the toys he wishes, is soothed and well treated, BUT (the most important part) NOT sent back into the thick of things until he is restored.

She says that for most intents and purposes, an out of control child really IS sick. A small child is not that far from babyhood where hunger pains or wetness or loneliness filled the little one's whole being. It takes maturity to keep being peaceful and well behaved through excitement or overtiredness or other upheavals of the body. Even a grown person often frays significantly under these conditions (and regrettably then sometimes takes it out on the children....mea culpa! More on that later). Usually the children that remain "good" in those circumstances are not really "good" but just unusually peaceful or regular children, who aren't so easily put out of whack by external stimuli. But for the more high-strung ones, anger and punishment on top of the initial upset is like torture.

For this reason, she says, a mother

Should not discipline or try to reason with a child when nervously excited.

(I think she means when the child is nervously excited, but it applies to the mother too! I try very hard to make sure I'm calm before I make a "consequence", just so I don't have to either retract or carry through something totally over the top later when I've cooled down! If you need to tell your child "We'll talk this over later when we're both calmer" that does work, and often you find the need for the consequence has passed. OR that it can be a more productive type thing, either a token "reminder" type consequence or a discussion "what would help you remember this rule next time?").

Methods for restoring peace in the nervously excited child:

Rather than escalate the nervousness by a hasty, emotional disciplinary action, remove him from the source of stress if at all possible, and try to calm him by purely physical means... a bath, comfort food, comfortable clothes, a place to rest, a warm steady gaze and kind touch. When he is restored, his normal desire to be good tends to be restored too. A word or two suffices then, and often the child agrees. If there's still something wrong, it's easier *after* the crisis has passed to discern what the underlying problem is -- maybe the child is getting ill, or is troubled about some life stress, has a food intolerance, etc.

What if there doesn't seem to be an immediate cause for the behavior?

If a child keeps falling into what Mrs Fisher calls "brain storms" even when there doesn't seem to be an immediate cause, try keeping an observation journal. Pay attention to the times and circumstances when the upheavals take place. Often you see a pattern. It isn't always easy to solve -- my special needs 9 year old gets frantic when the dog is let out of its room, IF he's already anxious about something else, but not at other times. I kept an informal observation journal over the weekend and I recorded several moments of conflict that I wouldn't necessarily have been able to predict. But knowing the conditions when you're likely to have problems helps you deal proactively instead of being shocked and distressed and angry.

Occasional conflicts in a house are normal. Perhaps the 20/80 principle applies here. If you can get rid of the BIG recurring rocks of conflict, and these are usually not very many, you have accomplished 80% of the task.

What if the mother is having a bad day, too?

The same principle of understanding "wild irritability" applies to Mother, as well, though the book does not discuss that aspect of it. There are times when I KNOW I'm not at my best. During those days it is even more important not to project the interior problem -- sickness, hormones, worry, whatever -- onto the situation. Yet that is very easy to do -- so it might be good to consider a Plan B for days when you know you're already off balance. That's a whole big topic itself and perhaps for another post, but I'm mentioning it here: Moms get nervously fatigued too and they too need to consider comfort measures for those times. St Francis de Sales says that it's important to remember that invalids and pregnant mothers, for example, shouldn't try to hold themselves to the spiritual practices they can do when they're absolutely well. When I know I'm not at my best, I try even harder to stay peaceful, and don't expect so much of myself in other ways that to me are not as important.

What if I'm worried that this behavior will carry into his future?

I think it's important not to project the child's present behavior onto the future. Say he gets frustrated and starts flinging his things around the room. That does NOT inevitably mean he will be in his 20's and get fired because he starts throwing office supplies, or even that he will be the kind of man who complains about the dog or scolds the baby when he's stressed. The strategies that an adult with anger management difficulties would have to learn in adulthood, you can start working on simply and constructively now when he is six or seven. By noting the child's "natural" reaction to circumstances, you can be a part of the solution. But it's much easier to work on these things in the present moment rather than extrapolate and "catastrophize".

Can you stop or rechannel naughtiness before it gets off the ground?

By keeping half an eye on childrens' play you can sometimes forestall "wild irritability" before it gets off the ground. I probably should have mentioned this first, but it probably comes under the earlier post on avoiding near occasions. You can usually hear a more frayed tone or more hysterical laughter or the beginning of an argument, or see wilder movements that look like they will end in someone getting hurt. Mothers are generally very sensitive about these early signs because they know their children.

Sometimes you can redirect quickly BEFORE naughtiness. Charlotte Mason recommended this. Some moms are gifted at a quick fun distraction -- "can you help me start these cookies?" Sometimes mom just coming in and interacting within the play makes a difference. Your stability and creative energy can change the flow in a good way. Sometimes you can change the scene completely; bring the kids outside or get their help fixing a snack. Sometimes I come in and "moderate" an argument that seems to be escalating. "K is saying that he had this first. What do you say, A?" etc. It sounds silly so sometimes it has helped me to make it sound even more formal than it already sounds... as if it were a momentous debate. Obviously I wouldn't do this if it offended the kids, but sometimes it eases the tension in the moment. These are just examples.

A friend of ours, who's a dad, will say "No more tiger play," when he sees that a rowdy game is heading for an inevitable blood-drawing. By saying this he affirms that rowdy play IS fine but that now is a good time to end it. If the child's "ears have shut off" as sometimes happens when games are rowdy, he can simply scoop up the non-listener in a warm circle of arms and transition to a "dad/child" wrestling match which is more controlled and then can be de-escalated into another together activity like reading together or talking about the child's day, or whatever.

What about consequences?

Finally -- if a child hits or does something that is against the family rules, you may have to still impose a consequence. As Mrs Fisher says, it's more effective to do this AFTER everyone is cool. And my personal tendency is to make the penance as minimal as I can considering the child AND the offense. Why? Because an excessive punishment can aggravate anger and cause fear and this distracts from my goal which is to teach the child to do better freely because it is right. Sometimes a somewhat silly immediate token punishment like "run around the room three times" sticks in their memory better and is a better inoculation against future offenses than something like "you're grounded for two weeks, and I better not catch you doing that again" Minimal consequences don't teach disrespect like you might think they would, because you can always ratchet them up with genuine regret and even ask for the child's take on what would work better to solve the problem. Sometimes I have offered a choice of consequence. This kind of thing is much easier to do in calm moments than in the heat of things.

Charlotte Mason recommends "natural consequences" or at least, as close to natural as possible. I think this makes sense, but sometimes is difficult to manage in the heat of things around a busy household. You could write them ahead of time. I usually try to make "healthy" consequences at least -- things that are sort of constructive in themselves and tend to produce good energy rather than anger and humiliation. Maybe I ought to try to write some more about this some other time, since there is probably more that could be said about this.

Boy, I meant this one to be short! Sorry, folks! On to the summary.

Summary:

• "Wild irritability" due to over-stimulation is not wickedness in a child; it should be treated with quiet comfort measures. The child should be kept aside from the scene of conflict until he is restored.
• The mother's times of wild irritability should be as much as possible treated by the same methods -- quiet and comfort.
• Don't project a personal mood onto the child, and don't project a child's temperamental lapses into his future, because that usually escalates the emotional intensity.
• In general, when things are escalating, work towards "de-escalating!" If you need to still impose some consequence, say for hitting, it works much better to deal with it AFTER things have calmed down.
• Natural, logical or at least "healthy" consequences are usually most productive.
  

Examples:

I've already mentioned a few in former posts. When Paddy was three he would have regular tantrums. I found that with him, taking him into my room, lowering the blinds, wrapping him in a blanket and rubbing his back helped him be restored. Did this reward the tantrums? No, because this is not the natural REWARD of a tantrum -- it's the natural antidote or counter-measure. A reward would probably be anything that fueled his anger or that brought the play of the others to a sorrowful halt.

Another child of mine hated to be touched when he was furious. He wanted to stay in his room by himself. I'd usually put his legos near him, put his covers over him and leave him to himself. His dad was better than I was at direct warm intervention -- he would joke and talk about unrelated things and somehow steamroll past the anger. This probably isn't recommended in a Montessori school where the teacher has to be careful about imposing her personality too much on the child but I think it's a very constructive thing in the home environment, though I am not good at it.

Yesterday Aidan was taking a bath, I was in the bathroom with him, and Paddy was there too. Aidan started sliding the shampoo bottle down the bath rim into a plastic box on the floor. There wasn't any naughtiness in the behavior, but obviously I could see possible problems, especially as Paddy started jumping around gleefully and encouraging Aidan. So I changed the scenario by telling Aidan it was time to go make pizza and fortunately, both the boys were into that idea.

Something I have to work on:

• Reading Paddy's signs when he is playing with his siblings and starts showing increasing irritability. Maybe have some books or drawing paper ready?

Application?

• Anyone want to share something that's worked for them or something that they are working on now? Please feel free! Stephanie has been mentioning some of her family strategies in the comments. If others would like to, I would certainly love to hear them.
  

Montessori Manual: Reasons Behind the Rules

Next in the series of strategies from Dorothy Canfield Fisher's Montessori Manual (the book is available online as a PDF and the relevant section on obedience can be read here).

Second -- As soon as he begins to be able to understand simple statements, the reason for various commands given him should be explained to him.

The child should first obey, then expect an explanation for the command, she says. This has two purposes: it shows the child that there is a reason for the rule, and it restrains people around him from making unreasonable rules. If a mother is inclined to say "no" for small reasons, she should try to rethink ways that she can say "yes".

If a mother is always thinking about what she WOULD explain to the child if the child could understand, even if it is a small child, it makes it easier for that mother to sort out for herself what is based on real reasons and what is not.

I read somewhere else that Montessori teachers are often grieved to see a toddler scolded for doing the very things -- touching, investigating, arranging -- that they are encouraged to do in the prepared environment.

Mrs Fisher writes, and I find this too:

"Such frank explanations and mutual concession are most valuable and vital elements in the harmonious relations of parent and child, and do more than anything elsee to prevent that bitter rebellion against authority which so often saddens the adolescence of children with strong wills and a keen sense of justice"

I do think that a general habit of minimizing unnecessary restrictions and commands, and being willing to think them through, is a very helpful habit. I wanted to mention some possible difficulties, things that have cropped up in my experience. But if you're not much interested, just skip to the summary, strategies and so on at the bottom.

I. I have to explain the reason for EVERY rule? I can only make rules that I can explain?

Here I picture a busy overloaded mom who sees this principle as saying that she can't justly say NO ever, or has to rigorously evaluate every single executive decision and communicate every detail to her children. The household becomes a free-for-all as children negotiate and argue and Mom has to justify her decisions. I do not think this is the sort of thing Mrs Fisher is advocating at all. I think I made that mistake sometimes when my children were younger. I hesitated to impose what the Church calls "disciplines" -- things that weren't specific Commandments, but that were indirectly good because they made the family life run better. And I often critiqued myself, which is an extra burden to bear when you're already doing a lot in a day.

While decisions should be thoughtful, mothers have to make some decisions by intuition based on lots of factors -- her own energy level, the factor of several children of varying levels of responsibility, the flow of the day, the stress level of her husband, many things that she can't explain thoroughly to children or even completely articulate to herself, but that she is taking intuitively into account.

I've made rules, say for walking near busy streets with my group of children, that I wouldn't have to bother about if I only had one child. This is part of finding what Stephen Covey calls a "win/win" solution that works for all the people concerned. The mom's sanity and comfort zone (and the dad's) are part of the equation and to be considered seriously in the same way as the comfort zone of the child(ren) is considered. I do try to give the children the understanding that some rules like "don't hit your sibling" are based more directly on the real nature of things, while some rules "hold hands with Mom when you cross the street" are more situational even though they are based on real principles like "preserve safety". More on that some other time, perhaps.

II. What if explanations and choices and compromises just make a conflict worse?

When my kids were younger I didn't realize that children rather like habitual behavior and get pleasure out of ritual; in fact, that small children prefer not to deal with long, philosophical discussions, and as Charlotte Mason points out, find it stressful to have too many decisions and choices to make. Sure, it is good to give choices and have some open-ended situations so they gradually grow into the ability to choose well, and it is good to talk about reasons behind decisions. But the value of giving choices and discussing principles is not so much because the children like it so much -- they usually don't particularly -- but because it is good practice for parents and children, and plants a seed for future thinking.

I am just mentioning that in case you tend to fall into a mistake I sometimes still fall into, of thinking that it is a concession to the child to offer choices or explain things. Then when your child gets angry and even more locked into his own will, you wonder what went wrong. Well, the reason, I think, is that instead of being seen as a compromise or concession, as it seems to the adult, to the distressed child it is seen as a third alternative and too overwhelming for an undeveloped thought process.

It is still good to give reasons and offer choices. But try not to expect it to be seen as a gift or a pacifier for conflict. Rather, as Dorothy Canfield Fisher says, offer these things as a teacher of responsible freedom, expecting the results to unfold slowly, just because it is a good thing in itself. Practically speaking, I find it MUCH more effective to explain things and offer choices in calm times when there isn't already a conflict going on. If my child isn't already emotionally invested in a particular outcome, he is FAR more likely to be able to handle the stress of an explanation or a presentation of alternatives.


III. How many times do I have to repeat my reasons for a rule?

Can it ever start seeming silly to keep repeating the same explanations over and over again? When Paddy has asked for the fifth time why he has to do a given thing, say put his boots by the door, even if he is obeying, I start working on having him memorize it so he can tell ME... or I try to set up in informal fashion what Montessori calls a "presentation" -- a teaching procedure. (It might be better actually to do this beforehand, but I am usually not that organized). Asking for the same explanation over and over again can start sounding like a reflex. My mother in law is very good at "object lessons" or creative demonstrations or Socratic questioning on WHY a rule is in place. She helps the child participate in the reasoning behind the rule. If you have a talent for this, it's a useful one : ).

It might be helpful to consider the Montessorian principle that the fewer and more simple words in teaching, the better it is. I have a friend who is very good at explaining rules in advance, but at the same time thinking up a short phrase or motto to express in capsule form her reasons for a rule. It is true but simply expressed so she can build on it with more detail and depth as the child grows older, and it sums things up so that she can quickly state it in times when there is turmoil. I think it's something like a "Talking Point" and I've seen a similar strategy recommended in various parenting books.


IV. I would like to explain reasons to my kids, but I know or sense that it will cause chaos.

What if you want to try to follow this principle more than you have in the past, or you have already tried, but find that this upsets the status quo so that for a while things seem to have actually gone downhill?

In some ways this can happen even in the natural course of things. Children slowly develop in maturity (with some steps backwards for various reasons which are totally normal). The applications of general principles have to change, too. There is a gradual "handing-over" of responsibility to the child as he shows himself capable of handling things. Sometimes there are temporary back-slides and glitches in that process, and it is helpful to be prepared for that.

But it is probably even more true when family relationships have had a lot of conflict and tension and opposition and the parents are now trying to change the pattern of interaction. It may be necessary to open the lines of explanation and concession very carefully, so the child has a chance to find the new balance. Anything that's done very differently from past behavior is going to throw off the child's equilibrium, and I've noticed that very many children who have learned a negative style of interaction find it becomes almost a drug -- they instinctively try to retrieve the more familiar dynamic when it's not there.

I remember my brother getting very angry at my mother when she was trying to use "reflective language" in responding to him. He wasn't used to it and to him, it didn't sound like his mom. He instinctively tried to goad her back to the more customary type of interaction. I should add that her style of interaction was well in the range of normal to begin with -- it was just that she wanted to improve! In the long run she was able to make the changes and cloak them with her own personality, but at first they sounded artificial and felt artificial to my brother (and probably to my mother too). So this can bring up another point.... sometimes the new ideas are only partly understood, so the mom is still working out how to make it part of her own style.

When I was first trying to put Charlotte Mason's principles into practice, there was no surer recipe for a bad day than to try to implement some new principle. I felt unsure and this threw me and the kids off balance. However, over time the ideas really did sink in and sprout and bear fruit.


Summary:

• Think about WHY rules are in place. (There is some interesting discussion here on Rules vs Principles from a radical-unschooling perspective).
  
• Think about how to explain and demonstrate the principles behind rules proactively, and be willing to change if the situation changes.
  
• But hasty or drastic changes are not necessary and might lead to turmoil.
  
• Some of the Montessorian ideas for presentations of learning tools can be used to present new habits and procedures. The idea is preparation and patience with repetition.
  
• Don't make yourself crazy about it; your own comfort level needs to be respected too. Just be willing to understand your child's perspective and work with the situation so that it is as easy as possible for him to do things in a good way.

Strategies:

Do you have an obstacle going on, a rule or habit that doesn't seem to be sinking in with your child, or a poor attitude? You can make a list, or just notice them as they come up.

1. Consider the principle behind the rule (Dorothy Canfield Fisher gives the example of cleaning up after oneself -- it is agreeable to the community to have all of its members helping to maintain order and cleanliness).
2. Start from where the child is.
   
3. If you can figure out some sort of simple key phrase or object lesson to represent your reasoning process, it can make it easier for the child to remember and understand.
   
4. Figure out how to make the action easy for the child by (1) demonstrating the method several times before actually expecting results (2) supporting the child by giving him user-friendly tools and plenty of encouragement.
5. Start with a high level of support, plenty of patient repetition as needed, and then slowly back off as the child seems more ready to take over for himself.
6. Look for win/wins.
7. Don't forget to laugh. This probably should actually come first. Read the "Anne" books by LM Montgomery. Those are great models for perspective in parenting through all the glitches.
   

Example:

Aidan used to take baths frequently because of his sensory processing needs. He would take off his clothes and fling them all over the bathroom, even near the toilet. Since he was immune-compromised, I worried about the germs from the toilet. So I taught him to put his clothes on the shelf next to the bathtub.

It was boring for me to keep reminding him until he learned, so we made it into a sort of joke/chant -- hard to explain unless you know Aidan and his love for joking and little catch phrases. Eventually HE would repeat the little catch phrase as he put his clothes there, and finally he remembered completely by himself and took pride in his ability to do this. Since verbal affirmation is also important to him, I would warmly congratulate him when he succeeded, until it became such a natural thing that he didn't look for this kind of thing anymore.

Something that I need to work on now:

Uh, teaching a child to clean up after himself? It's always been a challenge for me to teach my kids this. They usually hit their early teen years and more or less figure it out for themselves, finally. I guess they realize that it is for the common good and also that if they put their own things away carefully, their prized possessions don't get stuffed in a box and shoved in a closet, or ruined by younger siblings. But there are some pretty messy years in early childhood.

Montessori Manual: Avoiding Near Occasions

I wrote last time about the way Dorothy Canfield Fisher, in her book The Montessori Manual for Parents and Teachers, thinks parents can inadvertently train their children to disobey. One of the primary ways is to give them a command that they are incapable of carrying out, and that was the focus of the last post. Now for the alternative methods for encouraging obedience -- there are four that she mentioned, so I'm going to post them separately because otherwise the post would be immensely long:

First. -- To so arrange his life that there shall be few needs to issue commands.

A child's natural desire is to behave well; when he does not, there is usually some reason for the misbehavior. He is over-stressed, or there is something in his environment that is desirable but not allowed for him. He is inexperienced, and does not understand that what he wants to do hurts himself or others around him. Just telling a small child that something is not allowed is not usually enough for him to really "know" the truth, because small children are concrete and usually need repetition to understand how things work. It takes several years before they can actually pause before they act and think about what it might mean to themselves or to others.

Sure, children have fallen human natures like everyone else but young children, before school age, are not at the age of reason, which is a prerequisite for true sin. Their "naughtiness" may be a symptom of imperfection but it is not culpable in the way similar behavior would be for a given adult (and don't most adults have their moments of acting just like little kids? I know I do).

So one way to minimize naughtiness is by arranging the child's life to keep "near occasions" to a minimum. This is a reward in itself and also leads to better things. For example, a child who is playing well is furthering his own development, while a child locked in a power struggle is exhausting himself and the people around him. Aquinas says that emotion affects learning. Positive emotion enhances it, while strong negative emotion leaches it away. There are storms in a child's life that no one could possibly predict or forestall, unless the parents were superhuman. It's not our task to take these all away. But certainly parents can work towards avoiding the unnecessary, unavoidable ones that cause bad behavior.

For instance, Mrs Fisher says, it is possible to avoid a lot of "naughtiness" simple by avoiding occasions where the child is forced outside himself, outside his normal comfort zone. For example, some of the things that make it difficult for a child to behave well are: being shown off to other adults (forced to entertain at a party, for example), being dragged to activities which don't have much in them suitable to the child's nature.... that are oriented towards older children or adults, or too chaotic to handle. In other words, it's best to make sure as far as possible that the child's small strength of will isn't tested. Hunger and tiredness are two other things I can think of that make it hard for a child to behave well. And I have noticed particularly with my extroverted child that he really needs intervals of stable, reassuring "mom time" between periods of play with siblings or friends. Quiet time talking or playing little games or reading a book together restore his will and emotional equilibrium. If I don't come in and out of his daily life a bit, his behavior tends to disintegrate.

When there is no choice but to make difficulties for a child (say, if he is in church and simply needs to be reasonably quiet) then she recommends realizing the difficulty he is in and treating the problem simply and calmly. Enforce obedience, yes, but strive to avoid the emotional overtones (this is VERY difficult for me because I get humiliated by disruptions in public places). I think there is no worse way to aggravate a small child who instinctively KNOWS he is being asked for a lot, to be treated like he is a disappointment or a "bad child" just for acting within his nature.

Plus, as Charlotte Mason says, small children have a very active sense of sin. Some children put up barriers when they know their behavior is not pleasant in the eyes of their loved ones. They seem indifferent, but I don't think they generally are. So helping them be pleasant is a worthwhile occupation. Children who have "difficult" personalities often get less positive feedback from those they love. This can become a factor in discouragement and resentment which makes the child less likely to try in future. To me this seems like a reason to quickly isolate unpleasantness. ... to deal with the behavior quickly and decisively and in whatever style comes naturally to the parent, but to keep it as concrete and geared to the immediate occasion as possible. A bit of sympathy along with the firmness can be helpful. After all, being good in times of trial is a heroic achievement and even if the young child doesn't quite succeed, any effort is a positive sign.

Strategy

• avoid when possible occasions where the child is stretched beyond endurance. This will differ somewhat from child to child, so studying your child is important, but generally hunger, tiredness, over-stimulation, boredom, or lots of temptations in the environment (say a place where normal child activity can't be allowed) are triggers for misbehavior.

Possible Application:

• Look for a "problem spot" in your child's life.... some area where he has a pattern of misbehaving. Then try to figure out how to proactively avoid the problem (this is mostly talking about children below the age of reason, as you've noticed).

A Personal Example:

In my 6 year old's life, one trouble spot is that he gets wrapped up in playing and then doesn't notice his hunger signals until he is VERY hungry. Then he either lashes out at his playmate, or runs to me and imperatively, sometimes in tears, demands food right NOW. This recurrent habit could possibly be minimized if I paid attention to the time and had his snack ready to eat already, or if I set the kitchen up so he could fix a snack for himself and then reminded him at the proper time. So I'll give that a try and see if it helps.

A Note:

Remember that there are some things that are just going to be tough no matter what. For example, I used to have to take all three of my small children -- ages 4, 2, and 1 -- grocery shopping. It's unlikely that this will become an altogether pleasant, serene experience for most people no matter what. Dorothy Canfield Fisher would say that this is just the sort of situation to try to avoid if possible.

If you can't avoid it, you can generate strategies to make it a bit easier depending on what the "triggers" are. I used to shop with a friend who didn't have children. She didn't mind helping me out in dealing with restlessness, cravings and that sort of thing. Other strategies were: keeping it short, keeping snacks in my purse for the baby and toddler, getting my older child involved in the shopping procedure, and making distinctions between "normal" child rowdiness vs real problem behavior that involved defiance.

The task with these activities is to
(1) review principles of good behavior ahead of time
(2) recognize that this is very hard for the children
(3) make it as easy as possible for them to be obedient
(4) try to stay engaged and positive
(5) and try to get over it as fast as possible, if it was bad... spend some time reconnecting later (kids are good at doing this themselves, but some moms have a hard time forgiving and letting go -- I am a melancholic myself so I have to consciously remind myself to move on.)

Human Dignity in Children

"The first thing to do, in the consideration of the obedience of children, is to differentiate clearly in our minds between the obedience that is desirable for an animal, and that which is desirable for the young of the human race. We are apt to be confused here, and to have a misunderstood notion that children should obey, unquestioningly, passively, with no volition of their own, as does a well-broken horse.

But such unquestioning obedience, as a moment's reflection will show, is a very dangerous mental habit for a child to acquire, as well as a very difficult one to force him to acquire. The horse may obey unquestioningly some human being; he will always have some human being set in authority over him. But in a very few years, as human life goes, the child will be grown; will no longer be subject to the authority of parents, and must in turn be able to secure the obedience of others. It is essential, therefore, that he shall begin to be a human being -- that is, to obey intelligently -- as soon as possible.

What do we mean by the phrase "obey intelligently?" We mean he must obey, not because some one has told him to andd will punish him if he does not, for that is the obedience exacted of the animal; but he will obey because the command is a reasonable one, which his reason tells him it is necessary to obey."

This is another excerpt from The Montessori Manual for Teachers and Parents.

She goes on to say that of course, one can't expect reasoned obedience from a very small child.

"Babies under eighteen months must be forced to obey, if the occasion rises, as other little unreasonable animals are forced.... but, as this is a very bad method of obtaining obedience, the occasions for requiring obedience should be sedulously avoided, as much as is reasonably possible. "

Parents inadvertently foster disobedience by unreasonable commands:

"Parents, in their great anxiety to avoid that utter abomination, a disobedient child, often are entirely unreasonable in their demands on very young children. You would not dream of asking your 2 year old son to do a sum in arithmetic; and yet you tell him peremptorily to do that far harder thing, "Do keep still for a minute!" He cannot keep still for a minute at that age, and to issue that command to him means simply that you yourself are initiating him into the meaning of disobedience."

This reminds me of Charlotte Mason who says that parents should never make a command that they don't intend to see carried out to the utmost. Though I've known moms to misunderstand this dictum of Charlotte Mason's and think it means that one's command ought to be escalated to the level of an all scale power struggle, she in fact says, and I take it to mean, that one must be very restrained and careful in commands -- never making a command unless one knows it is in the power of the child to carry it out. By "in the power", I mean more than within sheer physical capability; I mean that the child is able to muster his own will or training in habit to obey without a terrible physical and emotional strain.

Later, Charlotte Mason says, you can:

when he is old enough, take the child into confidence; let him know what a noble thing it is to be able to make himself do, in a minute, and brightly, the very thing he would rather not do.

To secure this habit of obedience, the mother must exercise great self-restraint; she must never give a command which she does not intend to see carried out to the full. And she must not lay upon her children burdens, grievous to be borne, of command heaped upon command.

Another thing that Dorothy Canfield Fisher brings out, that is also emphasized by Charlotte Mason, is that commands ought never to be the whim of the parents:

"Our children should understand that their duty is not to obey our personal wishes, because we happen to be their parents, but to obey eternal laws which we represent and expound and enforce. To take an instance, familiar to all of us, which comes into our everyday experience: Children should not, any more than they can help, be "messy" over their meals..... Why should they not do these things? Simply because their parents forbid it? Not at all Because it is their duty, as members of a community, to make the common life as agreeable, as easy, and as economically conducted as possible."

Now I can think of a possible objection to this -- that obedience, while it should be as much as possible "free" obedience in order to be virtuous, should not be contingent upon an immature reasoning process. That is, the parents ought not have to wait patiently upon the child's acceptance of a command as personally "reasonable." Small children don't reason impartially because this is not their developmental focus at this time. They will argue, yes, but their arguments will be in the service of getting their needs met. This used to confuse me when all my children were very small, and I've seen it confuse other moms -- I've seen moms try to "reason" with a very small, determined child, which is of course almost entirely useless and gives the wrong message, that authority has to convince and plead and persuade. And it often makes the child frantic, for good reason; as Jean Liedloff writes in Who's in Control?, it throws the child upon his own resources and sets up an internal confusion, because the child wants to learn from the world around him:

It appears that many parents of toddlers, in their anxiety to be neither negligent nor disrespectful, have gone overboard in what may seem to be the other direction.....she appears to the tot not to know how to behave, to be lacking in confidence and, even more alarmingly, looking for guidance from him, a two or three year old who is relying on her to be calm, competent, and sure of herself.

I think both Charlotte Mason and Dorothy Fisher provide for this, too. They do not say that every small child should always "see" a command as reasonable; merely that it should be reasonable in itself. And they both say that authority should be restrained and planned for the good of the child, and his ultimate ability to do right reasonably and of his own volition. Authority should not be exploited for the convenience of the stronger person; it does a disservice to itself and to the people concerned on both sides when it is harsh and arbitrary.

Overall, most families and most children have a lot of times in their lives when there is no conflict, no need to think about authority or obedience. During those times, it's like the air we breathe; we only have to think about it when it's in short supply or somehow tainted. When there is a problem, as with poor air supply, there is usually a two-sided solution -- make the good easier and more available, and make the bad more difficult and less accessible. This means different things at different ages and in different situations, obviously. Mrs Fisher talks more in detail about it in the Montessori Manual, but that's probably for another post as this one has already gone quite long.