Characters for the Preschoolers

Many people ask why we have a strict no character policy at school, or why I don't allow my own children to have items with characters on them. The reason is found in child development.

Dr. Montessori found four planes of development:

The first plane is the Absorbent Mind, which occurs from birth through age 6. This is when children are taking in everything through their senses and integrating that into their knowledge-base.

The second plane is the Reasoning Mind, and this occurs ages 6 through 12. Children are able to start sorting through concepts and ideas using logic, they begin seeking out knowledge.

The third plane is the Social Mind, and this occurs ages 12 through 18. Children are developing moral and social values and working on creating the adult they will be.

The fourth plane is the Spiritual Mind, and this occurs ages 18-24. Young adults are making conscious choices about morality and spirituality, finding their place in the world.

Because the preschool aged child is not yet a reasoning child, their environment should be reality based. This lays the foundation for the second plane of development.

Our jobs as educators are almost as much about educating the parents as it is the child. With so much marketing and commercialization around, people just think it is "normal" to do characters. And I think people think, "Well, I had characters and I turned out just fine."

What people forget is the we played Barbies, GI Joe, Transformers, etc when we were in the SECOND plane of development, not the first (I'm sure most people actually have very few memories of the first plane).

Characters in the first plane are not developmentally appropriate, as children cannot decipher fantasy from reality. In fact, my 7 year old sometimes still has trouble with it. I know anecdotally that I see a huge difference in the work a child does in the classroom and behaviorally between children that do characters at home and those that do not.

Hopefully policies at school can translate into how people are parenting at home, or least have people stop to think about it, and make a conscious decision, rather than just mindlessly doing what the marketers want us to.

The hardest part is often times our families have difficulty even finding non character items. Thank goodness for the new Skip Hop backpack/lunchbox line!‎ And bonus, they are small enough that preschoolers can carry with ease.

If you want to join the fight against marketing to children, please visit Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood at http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/

Differing Parenting Styles, Why Some Work Better

So, in putting this post together in my head, Maren Schmidt over at Kids Talk Blog (http://marenschmidt.com/Kids_Talk.html) just happened to post part of what I was going to write, about the three different levels to the brain (amygdala, limbic system, and the prefrontal cortex). She did a great job explaining in, so I have copied her post and put it here for you to read. A shortcut: the amygdala asks the question "Am I safe?", the limbic system asks "Am I loved", and the prefrontal cortex asks "Am I learning?". You cannot get to the higher levels of operation (limbic system, then prefrontal cortex) unless the lower levels (amygdala and limbic system) needs are being met. What I want to expand on is where parenting styles play into these three levels of the brain.

There are three basic parenting styles permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. From Psychology Today (http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting-style.htm):

The Four Parenting Styles

1. Authoritarian Parenting
   In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment. Authoritarian parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, "Because I said so." These parents have high demands, but are not responsive to their children. According to psychologist Diana Baumrind, who during the early 1960s,  conducted a study on more than 100 preschool-age children (Baumrind, 1967), these parents "are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (1991).


2. Authoritative Parenting
   Like authoritarian parents, those with an authoritative parenting style establish rules and guidelines that their children are expected to follow. However, this parenting style is much more democratic. Authoritative parents are responsive to their children and willing to listen to questions. When children fail to meet the expectations, these parents are more nurturing and forgiving rather than punishing. Baumrind suggests that these parents "monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative" (1991).


3. Permissive Parenting
   Permissive parents, sometimes referred to as indulgent parents, have very few demands to make of their children. These parents rarely discipline their children because they have relatively low expectations of maturity and self-control. According to Baumrind, permissive parents "are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation" (1991). Permissive parents are generally nurturing and communicative with their children, often taking on the status of a friend more than that of a parent.

So, what does parenting style have to do with levels of brain development? 

Well, it turns out that that the children of permissive parents are generally operating at the amygdala level of the brain. They are not sure of their safety and well-being, so they cannot move to higher levels of operation. Children of permissive parents often rank low self-regulation, have problems with authority and perform poorly in school. They also rank low in happiness, ironic when this parenting style often results from a parent's desire to keep the child always "happy". Dr. Montessori called this type of parenting "abandonment."

Children of authoritarian parents parents operate at the limbic system of the brain. While they know they are safe, they are not sure that they are loved. These children also rank low in happiness, as well as self-esteem and social competence. In Montessori this is the second level of obedience, “The second level is when the child can always obey, or rather, when there are no longer any obstacles deriving from his lack of control. His powers are now consolidated and can be directed not only by his own will, but by the will of another.” (Montessori, The Absorbent Mind, 1964). This level is when a child operates based on another person's will.

Children of authoritative parents operate as the prefrontal cortex level. They are happy, capable, and successful. It turns out that children NEED firm boundaries to function at their best level. Otherwise, they just aren't sure if they are safe. On the other hand, they need those boundaries enforced in a respectful manner. Dr. Montessori called this the third level of obedience: when the child “responds promptly and with enthusiasm and as he perfects himself in the exercise, he finds happiness in being able to obey.” (Montessori, The Discovery of the Child, 1967). The child responds this way because of the love, trust, and respect s/he has for the adult. They obey to make themselves happy, not to please the adult.

What type of parenting style do you have? If not authoritative, what changes can you make to make your style more authoritative?

My Amygdala Made Me Do It!

May 3, 2014 at 5:00 AM

Learning to control impulses is an important task for our children, and all of us, to learn.  Until our children learn to control urges to hit, kick, punch, pinch, bite, spit, name call and more, we’ll see all those behaviors emerge when life becomes overwhelming.

How is self-control established?  Let’s look at the young child’s brain.  Our brains are perhaps best viewed as three brains in one.

Our reptilian brain (cerebellum) takes in all sensory information and handles issue of basic survival, instincts and nonverbal communication, as well as autonomous body functions.  If the reptilian brain senses a threat to our safety, instinct for fight or flight takes over our thinking.

The next brain is the old-mammalian or limbic system, referred to also as our emotional brain. If the reptilian brain senses a threat, the limbic system is flooded with cortisol, a stress hormone, and the ability to tap into the thinking part of our brains, the neo-cortex (or new mammalian brain), is short circuited.  The amygdala, the part of the limbic system that regulates emotional and allows us to reach into our memory and previous learning, shuts down. 

When the reptilian brain senses that life is safe and calm, the limbic system is flooded with a different kind of neurotransmitter, GABA (gamma-aminobutrylic acid) which allows the limbic system to connect with the neo-cortex, allowing the connection to the prefrontal lobes, the place where the executive functions of planning, decision making and understanding consequences happen. 

In order to learn effectively and control our impulses, the reptilian, the old-mammalian, the new mammalian and the prefrontal cortex need to be in a state of calm.

For a two-year-old the reptilian and old mammalian brain are the most active, with the new mammalian brain getting more function as language and experience develops.

The three-year-old with good language skills begins to be able to tap into the prefrontal cortex and to begin thinking ahead and planning.

The two-year-old is happily playing with some blocks when three-year-old big sister comes and knocks them down.  Since the neo-cortex is not highly active in the two-year-old, the emotional and reptilian brain reacts instinctually.  A hit.  A push.  A scream.  The two-year-old body is awash with stress hormones that shut off the possibility of logical thought, or learning from the situation.

It is the adult who must act as the neo-cortex and the prefrontal cortex for the child by removing the child from the situation in a calm way until the stress hormones can calm and the reptilian brain senses safety again.

As language become stronger in the older child we can use language to help calm the different brain functions and help develop the prefrontal cortex.  After the children involved in an incident have calmed down we can discuss what happened.

To gather details we can ask what happened. We can name the feelings.  We can offer alternatives.  We can offer a dress rehearsal with role-playing. 

Let’s take our block-building incident.  After allowing some time to calm down, we ask what happened.  For the two-year-old we ask yes /no questions that can be answered nonverbally with a nod or shake of the head.

Tell the story. As we gather details we tell the story.  “Sam was playing with the blocks and had built a tower.  Brett came over and knocked down the tower.  Sam got hit in the head with a block.  That hurt.   Sam bit Brett.  That hurt.  Brett hit Sam.  That hurt.  I took Sam to sit with me in the rocking chair.”

Give the feelings a name.  To help connect the emotional brain with the neo-cortex, name the emotions.  “I feel sad that Sam and Brett got hurt.  Sam, you look sad.  Brett, you look sad.”

Come up with alternatives. “What could we do differently? We need to be kind to each other and not bother other people’s things or activities. If Brett wanted to knock down a tower, he should build his own. If Brett bothers your things or activity, instead of biting or hitting you could say, stop.  Can you say, stop, please?  Doing your own activity is a better choice than bothering others. Saying stop is a better choice than hurting someone.”

Practice.  “Let’s practice.  I’m building a tower and Brett wants to knock it down.  Brett what could you do instead?  Sam, what could I say to Brett?  Yes. Stop, please.  Using our words is a better choice that hurting each other.”

Until our children’s brains and bodies calm, the amygdala makes them do it.  Until calm arrives, be your child’s prefrontal cortex.

Additional Resources:

Conscious Discipline: https://consciousdiscipline.com/

Jill Vetstein's Nurturing Parents and Teachers: http://www.nurturingparentsandteachers.com/

Trust in the Child

Here is the fundamental question in education, one that Dr. Maria Montessori was completely sure about, but that most people struggle with. When it comes down to it, do you have 100% trust the child? Do you think that the child has everything within itself for maximum growth?

According to Montessori and the "triangle", if you have a properly prepared environment, a properly trained adult, and the child, s/he will learn what they need, when they need without any direct instruction or prodding from the adult. Now, this might not be according to the government, or even society, mandated list of when and how things need to be learned. However, it IS within the realm of what THAT child at THAT time needs to learn.

Of course, if you take away any of the two things the adult has control over (the environment and trained adult), you wouldn't necessarily see these results.

This is why I feel like, if we were to put Dr. Montessori in a political party in today's America she would be a Libertarian. So, that each individual needs what each individual needs when they need it, without a top down government agenda that needs to be fulfilled by the child. Also, Ayn Rand stated that the only education method/philosophy she could endorse was Montessori (if you haven't read her manifesto on education "The Comprachicos," I highly recommend it. She discusses Montessori at length.)

I hear the arguments that people give about getting students to comply to an outside "authority" so that they know how to. The other side of that coin is why should they? Why are we presuming that this authority knows more about where the child should be going than the child him/herself knows? Why aren't we wanting to have that student that is forging the new world outside of the chains of authority? I think when Dr. Montessori spoke of learning societal norms and whatnot, she meant it more in terms of grace and courtesy, rather than academic norms and authority (with the exception of religion, for her). Do we not trust the child to reach their potential on their own? If not, aren't we actually thwarting that potential by enforcing what WE think they should know upon them at a time they aren't interested in it, when they could be going down the path that they truly should have been on if we hadn't gotten in their way? Why are we setting them up to be in a position where they have to comply to authority, rather than setting them up to BECOME the authority (of themselves)? If the child NEEDS to, say s/he decides to be a doctor and must go to medical school, they will comply to that authority to get to THEIR goal. But that is a means to their end, not being forced upon them by the adult "who knows better". They don't need to be trained in that.

 

My Child Won't Join us For Family Dinner!

Some brilliant advice from a Montessori friend, Maureen:

The child decides not to eat with the family for whatever the reason might be. Afterwards, the child might say, "I am hungry". The parent could 1) feed him leftovers 2) say, "Oh, I am sorry, but dinner is over now. We will be eating again later and I hope you can join us or 3) I am sorry that you weren't hungry when we ate (although chances are that lack of hunger had absolutely nothing to do with the resistance to eat with the family). Maybe you can fix yourself some crackers from the pantry and you know how to get your own drink. From a parent's outlook, I would say the chances are pretty good that if I fed him leftovers that this could happen again, either from him or another child watching the drama unfold. If I take the second approach, I would probably come across as pretty authoratarian and that could feed into more demands of "being hungry" That would turn into a power struggle. The third option validates his need to eat, yet it does not allow the child the option to dictate what he wants on his own terms with low regard for others and cultural expectations. Another option could be to serve the food cold I guess, if it was still fresh enough for consumption.

10 Things Not To Do To An Upset Child

Great blog post from Authentic Parenting:

http://www.authenticparenting.info/2011/12/10-things-not-to-do-to-upset-child-and.html

What we see everyday!

Little Girl, Big Brain | Montessori At Home!

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.1

My Child has Stolen! and a word about parasite lessons

Inspired by true events:

My cousin's ten year old son recently stole a pack of erasers (he has been collecting them) from a Wal-Mart. My cousin's initial response was to donate all of his Christmas toys to Toys for Tots, or to make him do community service. I applaud my cousin for wanted to do something about this problem. Many times I have witnessed parents do nothing because the event seemed to not matter. His mother caught the theft and went back and paid for the erasers (then donated them to Toys for Tots so he did not get them). So, in many parent's eyes, no problem. The problem though is that if this is not addressed now then it becomes a more serious problem later. Bigger things are stolen, maybe mom doesn't catch it. Or maybe he assumes that his parents are always going to bail him out of tough situations.

However, the problem with this punishment is that you wouldn't want him to associate charity with punishment. In Montessori, we do not have punishments at all (nor do we have external rewards). As Dr. Montessori said "the prize and punishments are incentives toward unnatural or forced effort, and, therefore we certainly cannot speak of the natural development of the child in connection with them." However, if we allow children to face the consequences of their choices, that then becomes a learning experience for the child. One that can be built upon. Punishment also comes with what we call "parasite lessons." This parasite lesson would be that helping others out is something we do when we have done something society deems wrong. If children lose "television time" because of bad behavior you've made television something to be coveted because when the child is behaving properly television is permitted.

In this case, I would first have a serious talk with him about how this was illegal and he could go to jail. His uncle is a police officer and could even take him to the jail and show him where people go when they steal. The talk needs to be framed with why it is wrong to steal. The learning experience should include having him examine himself to assess how he would feel if someone had stole from him. And how, in our society, we must earn what we receive. Then have him earn the money to pay for the erasers (by doing chores that he would not normally be required to do) and repay his mom. Additionally, he should write a letter to the Wal-mart about what he's learned and how he would do things differently next time. Which he needs to present to the manage Wal-mart of the in person.

And then going forward, parents should think about what parasite lesson is being learned from giving children everything they want, when they want it. Is that a life lesson you want your children to have? I know my cousin suspects that the theft happened because his son generally gets everything he wants. My cousin suspects that he wanted it and assumed he could have it. At a young age have your children start paying for items, even better if they pay for it with money they have earned. And earning should be for something that he or she should not be responsible for. Making the bed, cleaning their own dishes, and putting their own laundry away are all jobs that your child should already be doing as care of himself or herself. My daughter earns money by folding her dad's socks. It is a job he doesn't like, so it saves him work, and it isn't something she should normally be responsible for.