What I've been reading: Toxic Childhood by Sue Palmer

Toxic childhood: How the modern world is damaging our children and what we can do about it had a slightly unexpected effect on me. Rather than making me depressed, or even analytical, I found myself giggling through some sections. Which is not a criticism, just a reflection of where I am in the genre. I think I've read enough parenting books now so that things are starting to repeat themselves a bit and my attention wanders somewhat. When I'd read that Sue Palmer was

a former primary headteacher in the Scottish Borders

I formed an unfortunate stereotype in my head and I kept imagining a rather prim figure bemoaning the state of society and the feral underclass and the downfall of western civilisation. After all, a 2005 survey found that three quarters of pre-teens do not put their knives and forks together at the end of a meal (pg 33). Good heavens!

She also writes things that I seriously doubt would get published in New Zealand. Such as:

Thus 'the getting of literacy' creates enriched neural networks in children's brains, which may well be significant in the development of civilised behaviour. I don't think it's any coincidence that written language has proved a key element in all successful civilisations and that universal literacy appears essential to the success of democratic systems. (pg 201)

In a couple of chapters, she really seemed to have a bee in her bonnet despite entreaties from others (that she refers to in the text) to tone things down. Actually I think I enjoyed those chapters the most - nothing like a bit of passion and colour to make a book come alive!

Anyway. I think what Sue has to say is essentially correct, and if you distill the essence of her work, she makes a number of very sound and sensible recommendations about parenting. If you came out of it with nothing more than her authoritative mantra of "warm but firm, warm but firm" you would take away something of value. But here's some criticisms, questions and comments.

- This is a book written by a former teacher, who seems to make her living lecturing teachers. You could read it easily using homeschooling lens and frequently say "Aha! AHA! So why keep them in school at all then?!" Some of her comments are a bit...disempowering of parents shall we say. Such as:

Teachers learn about childish wiles through wide experience, but most parents' experience of children is limited. (pg 292)

I think I know what she's getting at, but I would have put it...differently. Perhaps it is only natural that an educationalist would not see the education system as part of the problem, or would argue that most of the problems lie primarily in the hands of parents to resolve. (Don't be fooled by this criticism though - there's lots in the book that is critical of educational systems that research shows do not work. And what doesn't work is early and competitive academics. I quite liked her idea of separating positive and real competition (such as that on the sports field) with that which is far too important not for everyone to be a winner (development of literacy, numeracy and a love of learning).
- An attachment parent Sue is not. Lots here about "proper" routines and this gem of a quote:

One important truth is that children - even very small children - are naturally manipulative. They have to be to ensure their survival - as the smallest and weakest of humans, they have to rely on psychology to make sure their needs are noticed. So they learn very early how to reward adults with smiles and punish them with screams, and as time goes on many become extremely adept at getting their own way.

(pg 292). Golly. My baby is performing behaviourist psychology on me to get his own way! I find this a really odd way of looking at the world - it assumes that children are extremely empathic and aware of the world around them very early on, rather than simply being highly focused on their own needs (because that's all they are aware of at first) and expressing their needs the only way they know how. In order to do all this "rewarding" and "punishing" they would have to have quite a good ability to take the perspective of another - an advanced skill indeed and ironically enough, perhaps the key to detoxing a childhood.
- I seriously doubt whether the golden age of childhood and parenting that keeps hovering just out of view ever really existed. I wonder what Sue would make of Parenting for a Peaceful World? Was there ever really an "adult alliance" out there, protecting the community's kids in exchange for good manners and respect?
- It's probably all too easy to mock her concern for the development of a feral underclass, but I quite liked the "Mind the Gap" sections. Because there are haves and have-nots in society. And there's only one lot who is going to be reading this book.
- If I had read the words "electric speed" one more time, I would have screamed.

Parenting for a Peaceful World

Well, I have finished reading the above book by Robin Grille, and it's due back at the library tomorrow. So, what to say?

It is a long book - longer than it needs to be. It could have been made much more punchy by quick summaries of other people's work (rather than what looked like long paraphrasing) and cutting out the occasional brain spew of rampant opinion. (Brain spews are of course quite acceptable in one's own book - or blog! But a few in here are just not in keeping with the main style of the book, which is a reasoned and referenced argument for re-examining and reprioritising how we raise our children).

The first part of the book looks at a psychohistory of childhood throughout the ages. It extensively references Lloyd de Mause and the Journal of Psychohistory - so much so that I wondered if I should just save myself some time and read de Mause instead. A quick google echoed two of my criticisms - that the history was really about child abuse rather than childhood, and that it required acceptance of the notion that emotional trauma in childhood was the root cause of war (and indeed any interpersonal violence). I find it hard to accept that any complex phenomenon can be explained by a single factor.

The model of a number of different child-rearing modes evolving over time (and co-existing) is an interesting one though. I liked how it avoids simple dualisms (such as "if you don't believe in unconditional parenting, therefore you must love your child conditionally" or "if you aren't attachment parenting, therefore your children are detached").

I found it interesting that not once did the author discuss abortion - perhaps because it fits uneasily into this model. I suspect that abortion is more acceptable overall in liberal families in the helping mode than in the stricter, authoritarian or sociailising families (who might place abortion squarely into the infanticidal mode of child rearing). This gap is surprising as he discussed foetal awareness later on in the book.

It took until part four (173 pages in) for the book to really hit its strides for me. I found the psychological spin on parenting and discipline styles genuinely interesting and a real contribution to the literature around this topic. The discussions surrounding emotional intelligence really had me thinking about my approach to life and personal growth.

And then I started pulling away again. Recovered memory syndrome...hmmm, I remember that from the 80s wasn't it? Recovering memories of your own birth? Well, not impossible I guess....maybe...I might be able to suspend disbelief.... Much of the last part of the book seemed to be relying on some fairly large assumptions and were almost a stereotype of what the layperson thinks of as psychoanalysis. Lie down. Get comfortable. Now tell me about your childhood....

So. I'm glad I read this book. It interested me. It engaged me. I particularly enjoyed the middle section and would like to come back to it again. But I hesistate to recommend it to everyone. Some readers would be entirely alienated by some of the psychospeak. Others would struggle to get through the sheer number of words to find the gems hidden within.

Long term parenting

Another book I have finally read after talking about and around it for some time is Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn. The cover claims enticingly that it is "A Provocative Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom About Discipline".

This book stands in contrast to most in the parenting genre. It presents an entire alternative philosophy to that which is usually promoted (being rewards/punishments with the aim of controlling and managing children's behaviour). Back in January when I reviewed Louise Porter's Young Children's Behaviour: Practical Approaches for Caregivers and Teachers, I wrote:

It is refreshing and interesting to have access to a complete body of work that forms a comprehensive alternative to behavioural management - especially if the star charts and times out are not working.

I am happy to report that I still agree with myself.

Alfie Kohn presents not a prescription, but principles and broad alternatives for bringing up children. It's difficult to summarise in a paragraph, but it's about parenting gently and reflectively. He argues that rewards (including praise) and punishments are ineffective and unnecessary - at least if your parenting goals are focused on optimising children's moral development, rather than their compliance. It's about working with rather than doing to, about taking time, listening and perspective taking.

There's lots to quibble about with this book. Some of it lies in the semantics of what particular phrase would be praise, and which would be acknowledgement - and whether the child would be able to tell the difference anyway. But essentially this is a good book that asks some big questions of parents and doesn't provide quick fixes. What it does do is focus on the big picture and the long term - which makes so much sense.

I was struck while reading how important it can be to read works in their own context, and as a whole (rather than presenting single ideas in isolation). Certainly some of my own doubts and questions were answered as I read the ACTUAL BOOK rather than someone else talking about his ideas!

However, for a New Zealand audience, I would rate Louise Porter as the better read - it's a bit more in keeping with our cultural context. The book itself could have been pulled together a bit better too - it felt like a summary of several groups of ideas (which reading his list of previous publications, it probably is). Occasionally he wandered (for example, his appendix on race and class seemed to get taken over by corporal punishment). It was a bit frustrating that he took a long time (chapter 7) before he described what unconditional parenting was in any detail. And end notes are just annoying - I much prefer footnotes, otherwise I have to keep flicking backwards and forwards. But hooray for the substantial reference list! (Are you listening, Steve Biddulph?!)

However, I rate these ideas. It is such a relief to read about parenting through a lens of compassion, love and empathy. A great antidote to the power plays, scary emotional withdrawal techniques, or slap-ourselves-on-the-back-because-we're sooo-hilarious programmes currently popularised in New Zealand.

How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

A while back I finished reading How Children Learn at Home by Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison. I really wanted to do a good job reviewing this book, because it started my mind going in all sorts of directions. I'm sure I made some stunning insights while in the shower. However, I needed to return the book to its rightful owner. And we've been very busy of late. So, yeah, this is as good as it's going to get. Unfortunately I am now reviewing the book without having it in front of me, so some of this is out of my dodgy memory.

The book is a result of research on 26 home schooling families (who followed an unstructured, informal approach to their children's learning), along with the application of educational theory and prior research. It explores an alternative way to become educated (informal learning at home with family).

Initially I read this book with great interest. I kept mentally nodding my head, thinking, yes! That makes so much sense. And when I went "yes, but...", often my question was answered in the next paragraph, which was very satisfying. The simplicity of the argument was compelling. If we know, through research, that free play at home is an effective way of learning for those 0-5, then why does this suddenly change when the child reaches "school age"? And if we can demonstrate that informally home schooled children can and do achieve success in life, then that in itself demonstrates that learning occurs and an education achieved.

Yes. But......

First, I was very interested in their interpretation of sociocultural theories of learning. Their comments (with respect to Vygotsky) that these theories were limited as they focused on how to teach rather than how children learned was genuinely illuminating. But at the same time I wondered if their reading of the material was correct. Certainly in the limited amount of reading I've done, I haven't thought of it that way before - it seemed to me that concepts like the Zone of Proximal Development could go both ways. I would have to do more reading though to be able to comment further on that. And I would love to read some work actually by Vygotsky (er...in translation!) rather than relying on the interpretations of others.

I had some problems too with the nature of their research. Somewhere in the book they say something like good parenting will result in an educated child. And it seemed like their 26 families were very good parents. Many were active in homeschooling communities, were dedicated and had a clear philosophy and an energy and passion for home education. So, not your average parent then! I wondered if the research had much general application. (It didn't necessarily need too, as that wasn't its focus. But I still wondered).

Because a lot of the research consisted of interviews with parents about their offspring - objectivity was nowhere in sight. We parents love to go on and on to anyone who will listen about how gorgeous, talented and generally excellent our precious babies are! (Hey, just explore this blog a little if you want an example!) Some of the anecdotes had a real "Gee whiz, he's so talented!" quality to them that grated a little. Some of the stories had...um...possible alternative explanations. For example, in one anecdote, a parent told proudly about how the son had read out his amazing story to a group of adults with total confidence. The impression given was that his powers of literacy and presentation wowed the crowd. Perhaps - just perhaps - they were shifting uncomfortably in their chairs wondering when this child was going to stop - please! (as the parent glowed with pride, blissfully unaware).

With respect to the research - I thought that a different method of gathering data could have been useful. At Playcentre, as is very common in early childhood education in New Zealand, we use learning stories to make informal learning visible. I'm proud of the portfolios that result - with tools such as a digital camera, a pen and enough time and love to just watch and notice, a wonderful record of learning can be created. This need not interfere with the learning process and can be either highly analytical, or just speak for itself. Would documenting learning in this way be an acceptable tracking process of informal learning, or would it be seen as too formal? I guess that would depend on the families' philosophies. It could be a very useful research tool. Blogs like this one can also provide incredibly rich information about the acquisition of informal learning. Sure, the filter of the parent is still there, but the children's learning is more open to a researcher's interpretations. I'm unconvinced that interviews give rich enough data to draw meaningful conclusions.

I was also struck by how often the parents said that children just knew stuff - were never taught. I wonder. I saw an example of this the other day - I can't really relate it online without identifying the person to at least three of my five readers, but I'll do my best to relate it. The child was demonstrating something that they had apparently spontaneously learnt. Yet watching, it was clear to me that I was watching a lesson. This was not a bad thing. In fact, it showed a parent doing a wonderful job doing what comes naturally. Yet because it did not involve a worksheet, a desk, or pen, paper or lecturing, it wasn't considered teaching. I guess my definition is a little wider.

A small curiousity from my perspective was the lack of attention to early childhood learning. It was almost as if there was the presumption that most children initially learn at home, then go to school (or at least learn informally in whatever ECE setting). In New Zealand at least most children attend something else (kindy, preschool, daycare, Playcentre etc), with the trend seemingly for more hours, earlier. Of course one may argue - as I would - that the informal learning these children experience at home is still of vital importance. Even a paragraph or two placing school-age learning in this larger educational context would have been helpful.

So, that was much of the first half of the book. I enjoyed it. It presented old ideas in a new fashion, and gave me some new ideas. All good stuff.

And on to the second half, which I found a lot more challenging. What I call the "second half" was more practical, looking at the acquisition of reading, writing, numeracy. I wasn't convinced. Despite the stories, no, I just don't believe that so long as there is literacy in the house, that children just teach themselves to read. Perhaps certain children in certain families. But for many, I think something more is necessary to break the code. And for me, no, it's not OK in the absence of special needs for a child to be not "ready" to read before they are 12. I can't imagine what I would have missed out on if that had been me.

Two other things I struggled with threaded through the second half. First, it seemed to be very important that children follow their interests. Fine, I can run with that, from both a practical and theoretical perspective. But it seemed such a sacred imperative - if a child was the least bit bored or unwilling, that was that. There was no obvious fostering of the learning dispositions of persevering through difficulties, or of applying yourself to do just what has to be done (even though it is boring or difficult). Sure, you can teach/experience that in other ways. (Housework comes to mind!). But again, I wonder. Even when doing things we love, sometimes there's boring or hard bits that you just have to push through to get to the (rewarding) other side.

(By the way, it would be usual at this point to say something like "this would not bode well in the world of work/"real" world. However, philosophically I believe that each life stage has value in and of itself rather than as a prelude to something else. So we can skip that bit).

The other thing was a strong thread of utilitarian learning - i.e. if it's not immediately useful (or the child cannot see the immediate use) it's not worth doing. I hear this often in statements like "well, how much of the maths you learnt at school do you actually use?" There was no analysis of educational process vs product that I can recall. It seemed highly ironic that learning for its own sake didn't appear to be valued in some of these unschooled contexts.

So, a worthwhile book and a thought-provoking read. I can't say that I'm a true believer though - if I were to homeschool I would require of myself a bit of structure (as of course some home educators do). And I'd like to see more research in this area so that we can know a bit more about this thing called informal learning.

Cool books for kids

Here are some cool books that we own that you might like to own (or loan) too.

You Choose by Nick Sharratt and Pippa Goodhart. Really cool because you don't have to read much! Great pictures to discuss, wonder about, imagine about, create little narratives about - you choose.

More and More Rabbits by Nicholas Allan. Very funny, but really nice. I love how "they loved each and every one" of their babies, whether planned or unplanned! And I love what happens after Mr and Mrs Tail grow lonely after the children grow up and go away.

Anything by Lynley Dodd. Surely New Zealand's pre-eminent poet.

Where is the Green Sheep? by Mem Fox and Judy Horacek. Its genius is in its simplicity. Engaging - and Orla can read it to me already!!!

Zaza's Baby Brother by Lucy Cousins (who also does Maisy). What distinguishes this book from all the other "new baby arrives" books is its illustrations. I love how the Granny zebra has grey stripes! And with just one line under the eye, Lucy makes the mother zebra look realistically post-natal.

Traction Man is Here and Biscuit Bear by Mini Grey. Inventive, original and great art work. It's the details in the pictures that I love. In Biscuit Bear, a blindfolded biscuit stands facing certain doom while others flee shrieking, its body language saying "what? what's the big deal?". I don't have Traction Man in front of me, but my favourite is the bit where it reads (and I might have remembered the exact wording incorrectly) "Oh how lovely! An all-in-one knitted green romper suit and matching bonnet!". And the look of horror on the sister's face as she unwraps the pink socks with bows is priceless!

Which New Zealand Spider by Andrew Crowe. There's a whole series of these books - we own the spider one but would love to own any of them. A fantastic resource for curious people of any age.

The Baby's Catalogue by Janet and Allan Ahlberg. Full of things of much interest to babies, and things for bigger kids to spot. My favourite page is the one on accidents. Another priceless look on big sister's face as the wet patch left on her lap by little sister is revealed. (Actually the look on the baby's face is probably better!). And the keys being casually dangled over the drain by the toddler.... The final illustration, after all the babies have gone to bed, is of a father with shadows under his eyes walking up and down in his pyjamas, small daughter flailing in his arms.

Orange Pear Apple Bear by Emily Gravett. Another book that charms with its simplicity. Young children learn the words by heart and love to repeat it - older children realise they know it and they really, truly can read the words too.

Raising Boys

I finally got around to reading Raising Boys by Steve Biddulph. I’d been interested in this book for a while, partly because it is quite well known, partly because I, well, have boys, and partly because of an intriguing snippet I remember reading some place, some time ago.

That snippet was something like:

"There is actually very little evidence for the surge in testosterone that many believe occurs in four year old boys, but which has been popularized by the writings of Steve Biddulph".

I tucked that away in my memory banks thinking that I must read some more about that sometime.

I kept hearing about this 4 year old testosterone thing. It always seemed to be either anecdote ("Oh yes, boy did I notice that! He is so ready for school!) or in a book that would reference.....Steve Biddulph.

Finally last week I came to the bit about 4 year old testosterone levels in Raising Boys and....no references! (Very little is referenced in the book - it's written in a non-sciency accessible way).

There was one mention of testosterone that was referenced. It said that at birth testosterone = 250 mg/ml, and from 5-10 years old levels are as low as 30 mg/ml. At 15 they reach the full adult level of 600 mg/ml. (This is attributed to the esteemed scientific publication Esquire magazine). In the text (unreferenced), he says that a few months after birth it's about one fifth of birth levels (say 50 mg/ml) and doubles at four (say 100 mg/ml).

Google was not my friend - all roads led to Steve Biddulph, irrelevant material or people chatting on internet forums (anecdotes, sometimes referenced to…..Steve Biddulph).

So, to prove that testostorone increases at 4 in boys and that this has the described behavioural effect, you would have to know that the blood levels for testosterone quoted above are reliable, that individual variance isn't huge, and that the increase in four year olds is sufficient to have an effect ("doubling" sounds massive, but if it's coming off a low base, it might not be that big a deal). You would also have to factor in receptiveness to testosterone. And you need to link the hormone to behavioural change (there's lots of evidence that testosterone affects behaviour, but are 5 - 10 year old boys really less "testosteroned" in their behaviour than 4 year olds? Are they just more mature? And again, this would need to be verified by something other than anecdote). And you would also need to prove that what is happening (if anything) in 4 year old boys was significantly different from what (if anything) was happening in girls of the same age.

I posted all this on an internet forum to see if anyone knew of any verifiable references. Nothing concrete yet….

So this is the first criticism I have of this book. It makes heaps and heaps of claims, but has very little to back them up. There are limited notes at the back, but some of the references are newspaper or magazine articles (which are not primary sources). Not good enough I’m afraid – if you are going to write a book about something, I need to see that you have gone to the original source.

Interesting, these claims seem to have strong cultural resonance. They are the things that people keep repeating to each other at coffee groups, or as they watch their boys at a playground. However, repeating things many times over doesn’t make them true.

There are a couple of minor errors that, while not fatal, make me wonder about how reliable his facts are in general. He talks about “Claude Van Damme”. (Jean-Claude, Steve. Jean-Claude). And he quotes that African saying…’Women hold up half the sky’”. Yes, that would be from that famous African Mao Tse-tung.

Sometimes there are alternative explanations for things he puts forward as being all about gender. One mother writes about how she treated her son differently from her daughter with respect to housework expectations. Maybe it was a male/female thing. Maybe it was a birth order thing – change of parenting style over time, different expectations for the “baby” of the household. Maybe it was something else altogether.

In another example, Steve recommends single sex English classes. He does this on the basis of one experiment at one high school, where they got better results after segregation. (Umm, yeees, but they also had smaller class sizes in the experimental groups, an adjusted curriculum, and special writing and reading support for the boys. But the results were just a result of the gender separation, not any of these other factors? Hard to believe. And were the results resilient over time, once the teachers had done this for a year or two or six and the newness and shine had gone off? Could smaller class sizes, an adjusted curriculum and special writing and reading support have been as effective in a co-ed environment? )

I’m not saying Steve is necessarily wrong – just that I would like to know a bit more about the source information. He says in the foreword to my edition that “…it is based on state of the art research as well as long lost common sense”. So why not tell us what this research is? And I’m suspicious of non-referenced “common sense”, which is often shorthand for ingrained prejudice. I’m reminded of this from Kohn which I quoted in a blog post earlier this year:

There is a time to admire the grace and persuasive power of an influential idea, and there is a time to fear its hold over us. The time to worry is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like plain common sense. At the point when objections are not answered anymore because they are no longer even raised, we are not in control: we do not have the idea; it has us.

Neither could I relate to the way that women apparently feel about their male offspring. Perhaps this is how Shaaron Biddulph feels (she is credited with co-authoring that particular chapter), but please, don’t project onto me!

Steve Biddulph also appears to make a key mistake (which is interesting because it is so ironic). Most of the book talks about boys being “different from”, “more than”, “less likely to” etc. The default which he is measuring them against appears to be…girls. So he is defining girls as the norm while simultaneously telling us to value our boys for who they are. This is curious.

(As an aside, a standard part of many feminist theories is that in patriarchal society, it is the male that is the “norm”, the subject, and the female that is juxtaposed as the object – the other. You see this in little ways, from sexist language, to things being described and viewed as male unless otherwise indicated. Think of a smiley face – male, right? Unless it has a bow on its head or lipsticked lips).

And yet – one little paragraph on pages 60 and 61 tells us to beware of sexism. I quote: “To say that ‘boys are different’ can very easily turn into an excuse for saying ‘they are defective’, or worse still, ’they can’t help it’ “ . He then asks us to take the following points on board “very seriously”:

- the differences are slight for most people;
- they are only tendencies;
- they don’t apply to every individual; and
- most important of all, we don’t have to accept them as limitations”.

So why does every other paragraph in this book seem to forget about this? Is it a case of when making writing “accessible” actually dumbing it down?

We need to know about our boys and our girls, to understand them better, to create empathy and to enable us to have rich relationships with them, now and as they grow. But does stuff like how one human population’s brain differs from another human population’s brain in isolation assist us in building relationships with individuals? Or can it hinder it by unintentionally encouraging us to fall into stereotypes and sloppy thinking? The answer may lie in ensuring that we have a solid base of facts and a clear understanding about the predictive value of those facts in each case.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not arguing for not researching these differences or hiding them).

It is such a pity, as about 50% of this book is very good (whether or not I agree with it). Steve Biddulph has interesting things to say, and is passionately on the side of healthy families and ensuring every child is loved and nurtured. Maybe it is just dated, but this book needs a total rewrite before I would recommend it to anyone. And please, please – references and fact checks!

Charlotte's Web

A couple of days ago, I finished reading Charlotte's Web to the older two.

I read to them from my old copy that Mum brought up with her recently. It is battered and old, and the pages are falling off the spine, but no pages are yet missing!

The story was as good as I remembered it. The children seemed to genuinely look forward to the next chapter, and paid attention throughout.

I did wonder how they would cope with the ending. It is probably the first story they have read that doesn't have the all-happy fairytale conclusion. I was interested too to see Aidan's take on it (he is curious about death at the moment, an interest which many four year olds seem to share).

They were quiet as I read the passage about Charlotte's death. Although well foreshadowed, I guess it is hard to imagine that it is actually going to happen. Even though the final chapter lifts the mood, Isabelle said at the end that she felt like crying. Aidan said "Poor Charlotte!". I found it hard to read without my voice wavering.

A day after we had finished, they still couldn't quite believe that Charlotte had died.

This is probably the first time I have read the book as an adult, and as a mother (which makes Charlotte's living on through her children even more poignant). I can now appreciate the skill of the writer on a different level. The theme of death and renewal is throughout the book - from Fern saving Wilbur in the first chapters, through Charlotte saving Wilbur from the reality of life as a farm pig, through Templeton's philosophy of live well, die young, and Wilbur's saving of Charlotte's egg sac (and through these offspring, saving Charlotte herself). Fern grows up and leaves childhood (and her place in the narrative) behind. This is all against the backdrop of the never-ending changing of the seasons, and the resulting farm routines.

It's interesting too that religion is absent from the circle of life and death, possibly because we are dealing with animals, and partly because it is not necessary to understand the key messages and themes. Charlotte lives on because she loved and was loved. That is precious enough.



(I googled E B White after writing this and was interested to see that he also wrote Stuart Little, which I thought was just a movie. The entry on Charlotte's Web is interesting, but just a once-over-lightly).

Young children's behaviour - Louise Porter

I had written a superb review of Young Children's Behaviour: Practical Approaches for Caregivers and Teachers by Louise Porter, but it was all in my head while taking a shower a few weeks back. So I will have to be content with the bits and pieces that I can remember, which I will write about here.

Overall I really liked this book. Essentially it's all about a guidance approach to behavioural management - a Kohnesque approach which contrasts with the dominant behaviourist rewards/punishments/consequences ideas which are usually talked about in parenting books. I liked one Kohn quote so much that I'm going to reproduce it here:

There is a time to admire the grace and persuasive power of an influential idea, and there is a time to fear its hold over us. The time to worry is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like plain common sense. At the point when objections are not answered anymore because they are no longer even raised, we are not in control: we do not have the idea; it has us.

It refreshing and interesting to have access to a complete body of work that forms a comprehensive alternative to behavioural management - especially if the star charts and times out are not working.

Porter has what I found a slightly unusual way of making her points. She tends to write: "This is the way it is (insert twelve references)". That makes for quite an accessible writing style and an impressively long reference list at the book's end. However, this means that she does not lead you into her argument. This is fine if you sense some kind of truth with what she is saying ("Yes! I had always thought that"). But it is disatisfying if you remain unconvinced, or know of other references not included on the list that seem to take the opposite position.

For example, mixed age early childhood education is dispensed with in two paragraphs as essentially suboptimal. However, another book that I have read recently confirmed my hunch (see my Vygotsky post a week or so back) that from a Vygotskyan sociocultural perspective, there are gains to be made with mixed age groupings - gains also backed by research. And I kept thinking "Well yes, that may be the case in the creche-like environment you are describing, but in a Playcentre we have a different adult-child ratio. And the littlest ones are accompanied by their parents. So that means that the objections raised are far less of an issue"). It made me want to go and investigate some of the source material further.

This book is - as the title suggests - primarily for early childhood professionals rather than parents. As such, it seems slightly pro-childcare over parental care - or maybe that was just the lens I read it through. Certainly her comments about attachment theory seemed to bear this out. And yet some of what she was saying is not borne out by other authors I have read (and I know she has read Steve Biddulph because one of his books is on the reference list!). I may be misinterpreting things here though. I'm interested in getting hold of Children are People too, which is a similar book that she has written specifically for parents. This may inform me more of her thinking here.

However one statement in particular led me to search the internet to have a closer look at her cv.

"In 25 years of practice, I have never yet seen a well child from a well-resourced, well-functioning family displaying repeated aggression".

Goodness me I thought! Perhaps I just have a different definition of repeated aggression.... I wondered if she had always been a psychologist, or if she had been an early childhood teacher who had subsequently trained in psychology. Off to the internet to check things out.... Turns out that the 25 years of practice is in the psychological field. So I imagine that she has seen 25 years worth of cases that involved severe, repeated aggression sufficient to send people off for psychological referral, rather than 25 years of diffusing what I consider normal playground conflict (which may involve physical or emotional aggression due to the immaturity of the children involved). So that makes her statement a little less confronting for me.

I was also a bit disappointed that, while the section on aggressive behaviour was generally very useful, it did tend to fall into the old labelling of "aggressor" and "victim" thing. If only parents and educators were so omniscient that we could easily use these labels! How many times has the aggressive hit that has brought on tears been preceded by provocation, nasty comments or a sly whack unseen by adults? While aggression cannot be tolerated and intervention must occur, I have never found it useful to treat those involved according to those labels. Ironically enough, one of Porter's own hints I have found far more useful: "look for a solution, not a culprit".

However - the book is still a stimulating, interesting and valuable read. There were quite a few concepts that were comfortingly familiar from some of the coursework I have done over the past couple of years. And it is good to know that there is an alternative out there that practitioners are applying right now. The book is in its third edition, which says something about how successful it has been.

Will read further on this topic....

What I've been reading: Pennie Brownlee

I have read Pennie Brownlee's latest: Dance with me in the Heart: the adults' guide to great infant-parent partnerships, published by the New Zealand Playcentre Federation.

First, I have to say that this is a lovely book. Overall I want to stress that it is great (and a fine antidote to some of the other parenting books out there). So some of what I have to say next shouldn't detract from this overall thumbs-up.

What I like about the book is that it doesn't focus on telling us what to do with our babies (like most parenting books), or giving advice. Instead, it outlines a philosophy or approach, and gives examples of how it might work by applying it to different areas of a baby's life.

In fact, I believe the book is at its weakest when it tries to offer this advice. Baby won't sleep in his/her own cot? Simple! Think happy thoughts, reassure your baby with kind words and just wait for this new sleep habit to set in. This sort of thing made me (most ungraciously and unfairly) roll my eyes, refer to the biographical detail and think: oh! so you only had ONE child right? And it worked for them? The one child thing came to mind again when she argued that staying home with your little child was only 3-4 years out of the workforce. I've been out of the full-time workforce for almost six years - and my youngest is still just a toddler.

The stuff about feeding on your lap was slightly annoying too. Annoying because while I agree with it in principle, its practice is really hard. The solution? Well, if the nurses in Budapest can do it with eight babies at a time, then what's your problem? Hmmmm. I'm not a Hungarian nurse. I don't get to leave at the end of my shift to have a coffee by myself and a read of the newspaper. And I'm at the stage now where I just like to eat my dinner without a toddler pouring mince into my lap.

I also question on a factual basis her assumptions regarding toilet training based on my experience of, and research on elimination communication.

I also feel that she makes the mistake that we humans often make of assuming that others see the world through our eyes - ironically in an attempt to make us appreciate how a baby sees things. Pennie sometimes asks questions like "well how would you feel if x happened?" It's quite plain what we are supposed to feel. But different adults will have different emotions at that point. So why wouldn't different babies also feel differently? Why do we think that babies would perceive many things in the same way as an adult anyway? The "how would you feel" question is only relevant if it is used to attempt to get an adult to look at things from the child's perspective, rather than as a prescription of how to behave. It is for this exact reason that I never ask a child a question like "how would you feel if x told you you couldn't play with them?". That child might reply quite truthfully "I wouldn't care". And there goes the lost learning moment....

Some of the science behind the heart coherence stuff just sounds incredibly dodgy. Or maybe it's just my closed mind! I had a quick squiz on the internet at the www.heartmath.org (one of her references) and while it looked quite flash, I could tell that it would take me far more time than I had available to assess whether or not this research was soundly based, peer-reviewed and published in respected journals, or just someone's way cool ideas.

In the end, those details don't really matter as much as her core message of respect and loving partnership. There's lots to like. I like her overall rejection of baby containers - although I'm not as hard-core as she is. I like the respect she gives to our little ones. I love the simplicity of her vision. Some of her paragraphs truly resonated with me in a way that made me forgive the ones that raised my eyebrows.

Check it out for yourself....