Petty Parenting Pet Peeves

Sometimes things I see parents do (at church especially) really irk me.  I’m not a parent, so I get that I’m not really an authority on raising kids, but I’ve worked with kids just enough to form opinions about stupid, nit-picky things.  I’m not trying to be critical of parents who do these things, because these things really aren’t a big deal.  However, I can’t for the life of me figure out what they’re thinking.

1.  Parents not dressing their children in weather-appropriate clothing.

There’s a lady in my ward that is a fantastic mom—the way she interacts with her kids is adorable.  However, I’ve noticed for the past month or so at church her baby girl (a ten-month-old maybe) is dressed in sleeveless summery dresses with bare legs and bare feet.  She looks cute, but I can’t help but cringe.  I’m guessing the dresses were a gift or a killer deal and the mom wants to get some use out of them while her baby girl is the right size, but for heaven sakes, put a cardigan (or a long sleeved onesie), tights, and shoes on that little girl!  It’s technically still winter! 

I get that socks fall off like crazy and that baby shoes are a little pointless if they aren’t walking (and the fit can be weird too).  I get that diaper-changing is easier without dealing with tights and onesie snaps.  I also get that maybe the mom is thinking, “Well, I bundle her up in a blanket in her car seat to and from church, and inside the church is warm.”  But still. 

The rule of thumb with babies is that they should wear one more layer than mom is comfortable in.  If mom is hot in one layer of clothes, then a sleeveless summery dress with bare legs is totally ok.  However, the mom is dressed warmly:  long sleeves, a long skirt, and tall boots.  Naturally, you should dress your baby in something warm too, right?  I feel like it’s common sense.  Again, it really isn’t a big deal, but why?

2.  Parents who use toys as a last resort to entertain their baby/toddler.

There’s another mom in my ward—again, a fantastic person—who has an approximately 18-month-old toddler.  At church, she at first sits him on her lap, unentertained.  I think she’s hoping he’ll listen along with her.  Nope.  After about thirty seconds he wiggles away.  Naturally he starts to explore around him—banging on the chair, jumping on the bench, etc.  She pulls him away from whatever he’s doing and sits him down beside her.  He gets up and explores some more.  She sits him down.  She does this over and over and over and over and over until finally she pulls out a toy from her bag.  At this point that toy dinosaur has nothing on the bounciness of the bench, so he almost immediately discards the dino and goes back to jumping.  That poor mom doesn’t get to hear any of the lesson/talk.

I’ve worked with kids enough to know that if you let them get bored they will find something to do, and it’s usually something you don’t want them to do.  Kids like to be busy, and this business helps them to learn tons of skills—hand-eye coordination, problem solving, large and small motor skills, consequences, processes, etc.  Keeping a child busy with a variety of activities is probably the biggest favor a parent can do for their child cognitively and developmentally.

I don’t really understand why she doesn’t give him something to do right away—before he even has the chance to get bored.  Give him a dinosaur and when he’s done with that pull out the Cheerios, then out comes the flap book, then the busy book, etc.  It requires more entertaining and prep, but I’m willing to bet she would get more out of church.

Maybe this mom is trying to teach reverence to her child and sees toys as something irreverent that should be avoided whenever possible.  Maybe she always waits until he’s bored to give him a toy and he always rejects the toy (because he’s already found something more fun to do), so she sees toys as a lost cause.  Maybe it just hasn’t occurred to her to pack more than one or two toys in her church bag.  Maybe she tries to make the toys really count.  I don’t know.  I don’t get it.

Pardon my ranting.  Again, these things are not a big deal in the parenting big picture.  And one day I’ll probably do something stupid with my kids that will make someone else wonder, “What is she thinking?”

Consequences

Looooong, long ago when I wrote several posts about parenting, I may have mentioned that I’d talk about creating consequences for kids of all ages.  I probably did.  You can click on the “Parenting 101” tab above for a refresher if you want.

Anyway, with a little help from Dr. Latham’s book, The Power of Positive Parenting I’ve come up with a process along with a lame fun little flow chart to illustrate things.

1.  What’s the problem?

This first step can be tempting to skip, because you might be thinking, “Duh, my child is driving me crazy.  That’s the problem.  No brainer.”  But if you don’t define exactly what the specific problem behavior is, how do you expect to change anything? 

You might put your child in time out and tell him he’s there because he must stop the craziness, but then your child doesn’t know exactly why he’s in time out.  He doesn’t know what he was doing that threatened your sanity. 

Was it the zombie noises?  Was it the leaping off the couch?  Was it the water guns in the house?  Sure, he might have an inkling that all of the above are not ok, but at the same time he’s probably thinking, “But she never said I couldn’t make zombie noises, leap off the couch, or have water guns in the house…”

Anyway, the whole process goes a lot better if you start out on the right foot by defining the problem specifically.

Examples:

• Child makes a habit of smearing his boogers on his bedroom wall.
• Child won’t stop making obnoxious, squeaky baby kitty noises.
• Child won’t clean her bathroom.
• Child runs out in the street.

2.  What is the natural consequence?

A natural consequence is what could or would happen to the child if you were to allow the unwanted behavior to continue.

For example (based on the above examples):

• The wall transforms into a solid snot mural, and eventually every future friend that sees the snot art terminates the friendship.
• Mother pulls hair out and child’s teacher strongly dislikes her.
• The bathroom becomes disgusting.  Child is embarrassed to have friends over.
• Child is hit by car.

3.  Concerning the natural consequence:  Is it safe?  Will it work?  Are you ok with it?

Natural consequences can be the best consequences.  There’s nothing like learning from experience—that’s how we learn as adults, after all.  However, not all natural consequences are desirable, so apply the following questions to the natural consequence in mind.

Is it safe?  Obviously, you can’t carry through with a natural consequence that puts your child or someone else in danger.

Will it work?  If you don’t think the natural consequence will eventually stop your child’s behavior, then a natural consequence is no good.

Are you ok with it?  Even if the natural consequence is safe and you think it’ll work, if it’s going to drive you absolutely crazy, ditch it.  The consequence shouldn’t be a punishment for you, so only carry through with it if you can live with it.

Examples:

• Snot wall is relatively safe for child (unless there are sharp edges).  It has potential to spread germs to others.  Child is a toddler and doesn’t really care about having boogers on the wall, so letting it continue won’t really do anything to solve the problem.  Also, a snot wall is not something mother wants to live with.  Thus, the natural consequence is not the way to go.
• Allowing child to continue with the obnoxious mewing isn’t likely to cause bodily harm to child.  It could potentially cause migraines in nearby adults, but it is considered safe.  Child may eventually grow tired of mewing (as mewing teenagers are rare) and stop on her own accord, but where there is nothing immediately discouraging her from stopping it could be years.  Thus, it could work, but probably not for a while.  Mother isn’t willing to endure the mewing, thus the natural consequence isn’t the best solution.
• A disgusting bathroom is fairly safe, unless a dangerous form of mold is involved.  Depending on child, the natural consequence may be effective.  If the child has friends over frequently and begins to feel self-conscious of the bathroom, child will likely eventually cave in and clean the bathroom and learn that it’s less work when it’s less filthy.  If child could care less about the disgustingness of the bathroom, the natural consequence may not work.  Mother doesn’t use that bathroom and is prepared to let it get nasty.  Thus, the natural consequence is a viable solution.
• It is not safe to allow child to suffer the natural consequences of running out in the road (getting hit by a car), and thus it’s an option that shouldn’t be explored further.

Is it working?

This question comes up twice in the above diagram, but addressing it once is sufficient.  After you have implemented the consequence, whether it be natural or logical, the time comes to assess the effectiveness of the consequence.  Has the behavior stopped or lessened?  If so, then consider the consequence a success.  Good job!  If things have stayed the same or gotten worse, you’ve got a few things to consider.

First of all, are you being consistent?  If you administer the consequence only occasionally, it will not work.  You must be consistent, and if you aren’t able to be consistent you need to figure out a different consequence that you can be consistent with.

Secondly, how long have you tried out the consequence?  Sometimes consequences take a little time to work.  And sometimes the behavior will get worse before it gets better.  Stick it out for at least a week, and if it’s still not working, work out a different consequence.

Keep in mind that even though you may think the consequence should work, be prepared to abandon it if it doesn’t work.  Being grounded may be the perfect consequence for one child, but it doesn’t mean it’s perfect for every child.  Every kid is different.

Create a logical consequence.

If you’ve nixed a natural consequence or if a natural consequence back-fired, the time has come to move to a logical consequence.  A logical consequence is a consequence you make up that is directly related to the unwanted behavior.  This can be kind of tricky sometimes and might require a little creativity.

Let’s look at the cleaning the bathroom example from above.  The natural consequence is to let the bathroom get dirty, but if the mother doesn’t want to deal with that, it’s time for a logical consequence.  If the child has friends that come over frequently, a good logical consequence may be that his friends can come over only after the bathroom has had its weekly/bi-weekly cleaning.  Logic:  Friends and guests can’t come over when the bathroom is a disaster.  If the kid is more into tech stuff, the logical consequence may be to limit tech use while the bathroom is nasty.  The phone/iPod/internet password magically disappears when the bathroom isn’t clean.  Logic:  Play doesn’t happen until responsibilities are taken care of.

Concerning logical consequences:  Is it relevant?  Is it realistic?  Is it appropriate?

Much like natural consequences, a logical consequence has to pass a battery of tests before it can be put into action.

Is it relevant?  As I mentioned before, the consequence needs to relate to the unwanted behavior somehow.  If child breaks curfew and the consequence is to clean every window in the house, it don’t really connect.  It might get the point across that the child is in big trouble, but what do clean windows have to do with being late?  A more relevant consequence would be to limit time with friends or limit car use.  Another thing to consider is if the consequence is relevant to the child.  If a kid isn’t very social to begin with, a consequence limiting time with friends isn’t very relevant.

Is it realistic?  A major factor in your logical consequence is your ability to consistently follow through with the consequence.  I knew a kid who always got grounded in three-to-six-month increments.  Did this kid’s parents ever truly ground her for the full three months?  No way.  Few parents are that vigilant.  The consequence has to be do-able for the parents.  This is a good time to mention that empty threats are not a consequence.  Telling the child, “Pack your bags and say goodbye to your friends because we’ve decided to send you to boot camp tomorrow after school,” when you have absolutely no intention of sending said child to boot camp is an empty (and unrealistic) threat.  Sure, it might scare the crap out of your child, but after realizing you got him good, he probably won’t buy into your threats too much again.

Is it appropriate?  There are two things to consider here.  For one, is it age appropriate?  Having the snot-smearing toddler clean all the walls in the house as a consequence isn’t age-appropriate at all.  Most toddlers aren’t developmentally capable of that kind of task.  Plus, it’s probably not the best idea to give a toddler a bottle of Lysol.  Poison control alert!  If a nine-year-old is doing the snot-smearing, however, some wall cleaning would be a fabulous consequence (perhaps with some supervision, depending on the child).  The other thing to consider is if it’s emotionally or physically abusive.  Anything abusive is inappropriate.  Blowing cayenne pepper powder into a child’s eyes is never appropriate.  Locking a child in a closet is inappropriate.  That’s fairly obvious, though.  Emotional abuse isn’t so straightforward.  I saw this picture on Facebook not too long ago:

I disagree.  For one, holding that sign outside a grocery store is totally irrelevant to bullying.  It’s embarrassing, yes, but not relevant.  Secondly, public humiliation is cruel and emotionally abusive.  I’m guessing he learned to bully from his mother.  Now, I’m not saying all embarrassing consequences are bad—mostly just the ones that involve public humiliation.  For example, if this mom had the kid bake cookies and then personally deliver them to each of his bullying victims with a face-to-face apology, it’s likely to be super embarrassing, but it’s also appropriate and actually relevant.  That’s a mom that deserves an award.

Something to keep in mind:

Consequences are all about trial and error.  Keep trying until you figure out something that works.  Also keep in mind that sometimes the problem just isn’t a big deal.

For example, all through elementary/jr. high/high school I liked to stay up late reading.  It drove my parents crazy.  They threatened to take away my reading lamp, but I think we all knew that wouldn’t make me stop reading at night.  They warned me that kids need at least nine hours of sleep each night to function during the day.  That didn’t stop me either, because I never felt tired during the day.  My parents told me that eventually they realized that even though I was staying up past midnight every night, I didn’t act tired (oddly enough, naps were rare for me before I graduated from high school) and I still got good grades.  So they just let it go.  It wasn’t a big deal.

Sorry this post was sooo lengthy, but I didn’t like the idea of dividing up the information into several posts.  So here you have it, all at once!

Measuring Success in Discipline

It has been a busy, busy month.  I am severely disappointed in my lack of posts this month, seeing as I have much to say on the topic of parenting.  So, I made an executive decision to do one post a month on parenting skills.  So get excited about that!

I've been reading The Power of Positive Parenting by Dr. Glenn Latham, and it's a fantastic book.  I highly recommend it.  Parts of it are slightly dated, and his examples of how to handle certain situations are shamelessly cheesy, but he has really good advice that can be applied to any family.  Anyhow, shortly after I wrote my post on spanking I read a chapter in his book on spanking.  To my delight, he made a majority of the points that I made!  I love when doctors agree with me!

He did mention one extra thing that is genius, so I thought I'd include it as well.  Dr. Latham explains that when disciplining a child, it's important to pay attention to what happens to the child's behavior after the discipline is administered.

For example, let's say Tommy fights with his sister 7 times a week.  His parents have decided that this must stop, so it is decided that the punishment for fighting is sitting in time-out.  If this punishment results in Tommy only fighting with his sister 5 times that week, and then only 3 times the week after that, the punishment has been successful because it has decreased the undesired behavior.

On the other hand, what if Tommy's parents started using the punishment and found that Tommy was still fighting with his sister 7 times a week?  Or what if Tommy started fighting with his sister 8 or 9 times a week?  If a behavior continues or happens more often, this means that the "punishment" was actually reinforcing to the child--something about the punishment encouraged the child to keep misbehaving.  How does that work out?  Maybe Tommy likes the attention he gets from his mom when she puts him in time-out.  Maybe he sees sitting in time-out as a small price to pay so long as his sister stops bugging him.  Does that mean time-out is a bad punishment?  No, it just means it doesn't work for this kid in this situation.  If a punishment doesn't work, it's time to try something different.

Oddly enough, sometimes it never occurs to parents to change a punishment when it's not working.  Sometimes parents become so caught up in the idea of a punishment--that it should work--that they have a hard time accepting that it simply isn't working.  They think that sooner or later the punishment will change the child.  This doesn't make any sense.  Dr. Latham uses this quote to explain, "If you're always going to do what you've always done, you're always going to get what you've always gotten."  In other words, if you don't change anything about how you parent, how do you expect your child to magically change?

Now, in my spanking post I mentioned that people use spanking because it works.  I need to clarify:  Spanking works well short-term, but not so much in the long-run.  Pain is a great short-term trainer, but a terrible long-term teacher.  If you don't believe me, consider this:  A successful punishment decreases (or completely eliminates) bad behavior.  If spanking was successful, a parent would find themselves spanking less and less, and perhaps stop spanking altogether because their children are such perfect angels.  It might happen, but not probably not often.  More often than not, a spanking gets the child to stop the misbehavior in that moment, but it doesn't teach them not to repeat the misbehavior in the future.  Thus, when the child does repeat the offense (and they will), all the parent remembers is that spanking got them to stop last time, so it will get them to stop again.  This is not success, by any means.  No matter how painful or unpleasant the punishment may be, it's not successful if the child's bad behavior doesn't improve.

In my spanking post I promised to suggest some positive discipline strategies; don't worry, they're still coming!

That One Taboo Subject

 I've mentioned before that I'm not a fan of spanking as a form of discipline.  I promised an explanation, and now is a good time to slip it in.

Before I start, I need to acknowledge that spanking is incredibly common, and when done correctly (it should leave no marks or bruises), it's perfectly legal.  I'm certainly not looking to condemn anyone (especially my own parents), so please do not be offended or hurt by what I have to say.  I'll try really hard to keep it educational.

Spanking is the most classic form of punishment, and there's a good reason why:  It works.  Getting a spanking isn't fun at all, so of course the threat of getting one can be enough to prevent misbehavior.  It's the same idea we talked about in the last post with the shock-collared dog--it trains, but doesn't necessarily discipline.

I think another reason why spanking has been perpetuated is partially due to an Old Testament scripture that has been taken out of context.  In Proverbs 13:24 it says, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."  From this came the common phrase, "Spare the rod, spoil the child." Both are fabulous bits of advice, but many people have interpreted them to mean, "Good parents hit their kids with a stick when they're bad."  What?  That can't be right.

In the Old Testament, a rod usually refers to a shepherd's rod.  This rod was used to fend off wolves that threatened the flock, or it was used to guide the sheep to the desired destination.  I don't think the rod was used to actually hit the sheep--I'd imagine a hurt sheep was less valuable.   If we keep that in mind, we can interpret the scripture to mean, "He who fails to protect and guide his son hates his son."  I don't know about you, but that makes a lot more sense than the idea of hitting a kid with a stick.

Regardless of the reason why a parent uses spanking, we have to take into consideration what spanking teaches kids, since discipline is instruction.  Spanking without teaching and explaining is just punishment, and that isn't desirable because nothing is learned.  When a parent uses spanking as a predictable consequence for misbehavior then proceeds to teach the child how to do things differently next time, etc, it becomes discipline.  This is just about as effective at preventing misbehavior as any other type of negative-consequence-related discipline.  Perfect!  So what's wrong with spanking?

Unfortunately, a child learns a lot more from spanking than just the simple message that they aren't to misbehave.  Here's an example, then I'll break it down:

A child is arguing with his sister, and soon it escalates into him punching his sister.  The family's consequence for hitting is a spanking.  After the mother calmly finds out what happened, she takes the child aside, calmly explains to him that punching his sister is unacceptable and also hurts his sister.  Then the mother reminds him that the consequence for hitting is getting a spanking.  She then tells him that the next time his sister is bothering him he can walk away from her and try playing with something else for a while.  Then, true to her established consequence, she spanks him.  She then asks him to apologize to his sister.

If this sounds ridiculous, you're right.  Who spanks a child calmly?  Spanking happens in the heat of the moment, not after a meaningful teaching moment.  This is what normally happens:

A child is arguing with his sister, and it soon escalates into him punching his sister.  The mother hears the sister's screams and bounds into the room.  As soon as she gets the jest of what happened, she spanks her son.  She admonishes him, "Don't hit your sister!  We do not do this in our family!"  She then sends him to his room.

That sounds more like it, right?  Not calm at all.  That's our first clue that spanking isn't the best kind of punishment.  When done in the heat of the moment, spanking is natural and makes sense, but when done calmly it seems awkward and...well, dumb.

You might have noted the irony of the consequence in both examples.  The consequence for hitting was hitting.  Does that seem strange to you?  It does to me.  This sends very confusing and contrasting messages to the child.  On the one hand, he's being told not to hit.  But at the same time, his mother is spanking him (which is essentially hitting).  So is hitting ok or not?  When is it ok to hit?  Is it ok when you're an adult?  Is it ok if someone is breaking a rule?  It's very confusing to a child.  Actions speak louder than words, and it's no exception with parenting.  The child ends up reasoning, "If mom hits, it must be ok.  She says it's not good, but if it really wasn't good, she wouldn't do it."

Even if spanking is given as a consequence for misbehavior other than hitting, it still teaches weird lessons.  I'll never forget an experience I had when I was in kindergarten.  I was playing house with a friend my age, and she was playing the mom while I played the daughter.  At some point I did something she didn't like, so she slapped me on the face.  Hard.  Looking back, it's obvious that's how it worked in her family.  When she and her siblings didn't do what their parents wanted, they were slapped.  She had thus learned that when someone doesn't do what you want, you can slap them.  That wasn't what her parents had intended, I'm sure, but that's what she'd picked up from what she saw at her house.

We must keep in mind that spanking isn't the only form of punishment out there that teaches weird, contradictory lessons.  A little while ago this Youtube video was circulating around Facebook.  You can watch it if you want--it's fairly entertaining--but it's kind of long, so I'll summarize.  Basically, a daughter wrote this huge complaint on Facebook about how much work she has to do and how much her parents pick on her.  Her dad found it and decided to retaliate.  He made this video to formally address her complaints, and at the end he shot her laptop to teach her to not complain about her parents on Facebook anymore.

There were several comments along the lines of, "Atta boy!  Way to teach her!" and, "Finally someone out there is willing to man up and be a dad instead of a friend!"  While I do give him props for doing something, I feel his response was very inappropriate.  Much like my example of punishing hitting with hitting, this father was trying to teach her not to complain on Facebook... by complaining on Youtube.  Very mature.  Also, by shooting her laptop, he inadvertently taught her that if someone says something bad about you on Facebook, it's ok to shoot their stuff.  See, weird lessons.

How parents handle frustrating or annoying situations is a child's main model for how he or she should handle frustrating or annoying situations.  If parents are modeling a hot burst of anger and mild violence to solve problems, it's only natural that the child will use the exact same skills to solve his or her own problems.  This isn't how we want children to behave, so why on earth would we act like this ourselves?  If we discipline in such a way that models calm, rational, and non-contradictory problem-solving skills, the kids learn to use these skills too.

Of course, this is easier said than done.  Next time I'll talk about ways this can be done.

In summary:

• Any impulsive punishment that gets its power from your anger probably isn't a very good punishment.
• Pay close attention to what a punishment actually teaches.
• Don't give your kids a rule you aren't willing to follow.
• Solve problems the exact same way you want your child to solve problems.

An Intro to Discipline

I apologize for last post's cliff-hanger.  I'm sure you have been dying to know what I'm going to tell you about next.  Because the topic of parenting tends to be a touchy one, I've needed a little extra time to think through what I'm going to discuss and how I will do it.  I definitely don't want to come across as know-it-all-esque.  Because we all know that's annoying.  Especially since I don't have kids.  So here goes nothing.

We've established in my last post that it's desirable for kids to learn certain skills that will help them to be successful, independent adults.  Discipline plays a pretty huge role in creating these skills.  Thus, it's important to understand exactly what discipline is and how to use it appropriately for a huge variety of situations and children.  Before I get too far deep into the topic, I'd like to mention that a vast majority of the things I have formally learned about discipline are from my supervisor, Jen.  I took her parenting class twice as an intern and learned a ton.  She's great.

The word discipline has taken on a lot of different implications, but it's archaic meaning is "instruction."  Here's a fun fact:  The word "discipline" is very closely related to the word "disciple."  The most common use of the word disciple, of course, is in referring to Jesus Christ's disciples.  Those of you who are familiar with Christianity know that Christ's disciples are his followers.  They follow what he teaches.  Another lesser known meaning of the word disciple is "pupil."  In other words, it's a learner.  Thus, a disciple (pupil) learns through discipline (instruction).  If you're Christian, there are many parallels you can draw there if you'd like.  One I like is that, ideally, the discipline of our disciples (our children) should look a lot like how Christ disciplined his disciples.  Christ chastised his disciples on occasion, but he always accompanied it with instruction.

When you look up discipline in the dictionary, it never takes long to come across the word "punishment."  Many people assume that discipline and punishment are synonymous.  This isn't necessarily true.  Punishment is a form of discipline, but one can punish without disciplining.  I'll explain.

If you've ever taken an intro to psychology class, chances are you've heard about operant conditioning.  Operant conditioning is essentially training a person (or animal) to behave a certain way.  There are a few different kinds of operant conditioning--punishment and reinforcement.

Punishment revolves around giving an unpleasant consequence in order to discourage a certain behavior.  A good example of this is shock collars for dogs.  If a dog barks, he is immediately shocked--he receives an unpleasant consequence in order to discourage him from barking.  After a while, the dog realizes the connection between barking and the shock and learns not to bark.

Is punishment effective in training?  Absolutely.  It wouldn't be operant conditioning if it didn't work.  But when you consider that the point of discipline is teaching, you have to consider what is being learned.  Has this dog learned that it's socially unacceptable to bark in the middle of the night when the neighbors are sleeping?  Has he learned that barking scares small children?  Nope.  The dog has learned that it doesn't feel good to bark.  He has learned that in order to avoid discomfort, he shouldn't bark.  If the dog still doesn't bark after the shock collar has been removed, it isn't because he has learned to respect his neighborhood.  It's because he has learned to be afraid of getting shocked.  The dog has been punished and trained effectively, but he hasn't really been disciplined.

Obviously, things are a little different when you're punishing a child instead of an animal.  Children have a much higher level of reasoning than animals.  You can't really teach your dog to have respect or responsibility, but this is something that can be taught to a child.  When punishments are carried out appropriately, they can be effective and teach the child what you want them to learn.  For example, let's say a family has a rule that if the kids come home after curfew, they must wash every window in the house as a consequence.  When a kid comes home late, the parents calmly sit the child down and explain why the rule is important, then administer the already-established consequence.  The parents also might encourage the child to call the next time she is running late.  Thus, the child has learned not only that washing windows is a crappy job, she also understands that her parents made this rule because they care about her and want to make sure she's safe.  As a bonus, she's learned how to handle the situation differently next time.  She has learned responsibility and respect without even realizing it.  Sure, she might be upset with her parents, but that comes with the territory.  When parents administer punishment appropriately (and predictably), it can teach much more than just fear of negative consequences--it teaches how to be a good adult.

If a punishment doesn't instruct, it isn't discipline.  What if the child had come home and the parents simply blew up saying, "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WERE LATE!  YOU NEED TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE!  GO CLEAN EVERY WINDOW IN THE HOUSE, AND MAYBE THEN YOU'LL LEARN TO COME HOME ON TIME."  The only thing she learns from this is that cleaning the windows is a crappy job.  She might come home on time from now on, but it's not because she's magically more responsible.  It's because she doesn't want to clean the windows.  She has become just like the dog who doesn't bark anymore because he doesn't want to get shocked.  Punishment without instruction is just training.  The instruction is what makes it discipline.

I'm sure you're wondering what happened to the other kind of operant conditioning.  Don't worry, it's still there.  Reinforcement is another way of training people (or animals) to behave a certain way.  Reinforcement is the rewarding of positive behavior.  Much like punishment, one can reinforce without disciplining.  For the sake of brevity, I'll go with another dog example.  If you want to train a dog to roll over, you can give the dog a treat every time he rolls over.  After a while, the dog will figure out the connection between rolling over and getting the treat.  Thus, he rolls over because he wants a treat.

When teaching a dog tricks, it's usually all in fun--there's no real reason for teaching the dog to roll over.  However, when reinforcing children to do a certain thing, it's usually not for fun.  There's usually a purpose.  For example, some parents reward their children with candy after they successfully sit quietly in church.  They want their children to learn to be reverent in church.  However, if parents dole out the reward without explaining to the children why they're being rewarded and why reverence is important, the kids only learn that they get candy if they're quiet.  When there's no instructing--no explaining of why--it's no different from training a dog to roll over.  Kids are capable of so much more than that.  If we want kids to be successful, independent adults, they have to know why good things are good and why bad things are bad.  We can train them to do the right thing, but it's better teach them to want to do the right thing.

So in summary:

• Children need discipline to become responsible and independent.
• Discipline always involves instruction.
• When there's no instruction, it's not discipline--it's training.
• Children can be trained, but training doesn't encourage responsibility and independence.

The Bermuda Triangle of Parenthood

Since I've been doing a lot of pretty informal writing for the past few months, I've been craving something a little more... informative.  I'm a social worker--I sort of thrive on giving helpful information.  Thus, I've decided to talk about parenting this month.

Am I a parent?  Nope.  Definitely not.  So obviously I don't know everything about parenting.  By far.  But I do know a thing or two from the multiple parenting classes I've taken throughout my education.  So I'll regurgitate a few of the things I've picked up, and hopefully I remember it a few years down the road when I have kids.

The whole purpose of parenting is to teach kids to be successful, independent adults.  That's the simplest way to put it.  The whole point of parents having their children clean the house, feed the dog, take out the garbage, do their homework, eat their vegetables, get along with their siblings, take piano lessons, etc. is to teach them skills that will be important in adulthood.  Through these seemingly menial tasks, kids learn responsibility, punctuality, fortitude, talent, independence, and problem-solving. 

The longer I work with kids and their families, the more baffled I become at the range of care given to children.  On one end of the scale is neglect.  I know children who have been locked in closets.  I've met a 3-year-old so malnourished that he could have easily passed as 18 months old.  Not only are these children being denied the privilege of learning valuable skills for adulthood, even their basic needs aren't being met.  In addition, these children generally carry a lot of baggage with them into adulthood--self esteem issues, trust issues, or maladaptive coping mechanisms (e.g. unhealthy addictions).

On the other end of the scale are hyper-vigilant parents.  I like to think of them as Neverland parents because they (consciously or subconsciously) refuse to let their children grow up.  They don't really encourage independence.  I know a 13-year-old boy who still occasionally receives help from his mother in using the bathroom.  You read that right.  13 years old.  I can't make this stuff up.  While this boy does have some issues, he is very high functioning and completely capable of taking care of his personal business on his own.  The first time I met him, she announced that they needed to use the restroom, and marched after him into our single-toilet restroom.  The second time I saw him, I was very curious to see if she would accompany him to the restroom again.  She didn't this time, but she did hover outside the restroom door while he was in there.  When he came out she asked, "Did you do the three steps?"  I can only guess at the steps--zip, flush, and soap?  Oh, how I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, but after watching two months of incessant hand-holding, I really can't.  On the slightly less extreme side of this same idea, I know parents who strongly discourage their children from moving out of the house once they've graduated from high school.  I'm sure these parents (bathroom boy included) honestly think they're doing their child a favor.  But I think we can agree that it really doesn't encourage successful, independent adulthood.

On yet another end of the scale (imagine a triangle), you've got the overly harsh parents.  These parents have got the whole idea of teaching independence and life-long skills down, but they get a little carried away.  Sometimes they forget to parent with love and understanding.  It seems to me that they also tend to have unrealistic expectations for their children--they want their children to behave like adults.  I'm fairly sure these parents do love their children, but they show it in an unconventional way, and thus their kids often misinterpret it.  These kids tend to resent their parents a little more than the average child and look for opportunities to escape.  Sometimes they have no intention of returning.

Obviously we're shooting for somewhere in the middle of these three extremes, but it's easy to get lost within this triangle.  We want to take good care of our kids, but we want them to eventually become entirely independent.  And of course we want them to like us.  Is this even possible?  Yes.  But we'll get into that later.