Yearly Archives: 2012

How to engage parents without being condescending

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I had an astute mother and educator ask a profoundly important question: “How can I engage poor parents without being condescending?”

This friend is a teacher in a thriving charter school; she is also the mother of a nine-month old and the member of a moms’ group. However, as she pointed out to me, all of the moms in her moms’ group are of the same social strata (and they’re not poor). She knows from experience – in the home and in school – that what happens in the home in the earliest years of life is critical for setting a trajectory of learning. So how can we engage disadvantaged parents without looking down on them?

Honor Their Virtue

The first step in not being condescending is realizing that honor is more appropriate than condescension. For whom is it more difficult to participate in a moms’ group: the articulate, college-educated mom, or the single, poor, poorly educated mom? The courage to put yourself in a situation where you know that everyone else has more of everything (education, money, power, connections, etc.) for the good of your child is a truly honorable act of humility and courage. It should be honored as such.

But what if they’re not making ANY effort?

It is easy enough to see the beauty of a poor parent who overcomes obstacles to love their children. But what about the parents who just don’t seem to care?

If I’m not mistaken, every person – no matter how disfigured – has a story. It may seem like they have nothing else to offer. But everyone has a story. Listening to the stories of parents is a powerful way to avoid condescension for several reasons. It validates that they have something unique and valuable to share. No one else has their story. When parents share their stories, my sympathy skyrockets. If I was looking down on them a few minutes ago, when I hear their stories my heart breaks for them because my previous perspective was so shallow compared to the depth of their pain. Once I have heard a parent’s story, I can truly admire and celebrate – without pretense – the steps that they take toward loving and nurturing their children.

The challenge is bringing parents together to share their stories.

Doing Means Making Mistakes

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday afternoons, I teach an ESL class at our church. My students show incredible character in balancing multiple jobs, care for children and learning English. This past week they taught me something else: doing means making mistakes, which is an essential part of learning.

Their activity was to answer several questions, in a complete sentence, based on a paragraph or two that we had read together. They completed the eight questions, and I walked around the room and asked various ones to write their answers on the board until we had eight answers written in front of us. Then, together, we identified what needed to be changed to make the sentences correct. The changes included capitalization, spelling, punctuation, grammar, and, of course, content.

What struck me was that willingness to make mistakes and learn from them is essential to this process. My students did their best, but still made mistakes (far fewer mistakes, I should add, than I would in Spanish or French – to say nothing of Tagalog or Mandarin). Those mistakes provided the context for our learning because they identified the mistakes, and they fixed them.

Kids are no different. They need to learn the boldness to make mistakes – and learn from them. If they don’t take the risks of action, they cannot reap the benefits of learning.

How do you provide opportunities for you children to make mistakes and learn from them?

On teaching responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

Have you ever heard the word, “sorry” said without a shred of authenticity by a young child? If so, you’re not alone.

Here’s a wise piece of counsel from the folks at Parenting is Heart Work:

To avoid having children say one thing (I’m sorry) while feeling something different in their hearts, we encourage children to say, “I was wrong for… Will you forgive me?” This statement doesn’t require an emotion but is an act of the will. A child should be required to take responsibility for an offense whether it was provoked or not.

Do you want to teach authenticity as well as reconciliation? This is a great simple step in that direction.

(This gem came from a Parenting Tip email. If you’re interested, you can subscribe here. I find it to be the most consistently helpful parenting email available.)

 

Family as the cornerstone of society

Posted on by
Reply

Today I saw a quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson posted on Facebook. It caught my attention, so I traced down the source: his commencement address to Howard University on June 4, 1965. It is well worth reading in its entirety – especially in our age of sound bytes.

In order to entice you, let me give you an aperitif of that speech, and a commentary on its implications for public policy and civic engagement.

Perhaps most important [as an obstacle to the well being of poor black Americans]–its influence radiating to every part of life–is the breakdown of the Negro family structure. For this, most of all, white America must accept responsibility. It flows from centuries of oppression and persecution of the Negro man. It flows from the long years of degradation and discrimination, which have attacked his dignity and assaulted his ability to produce for his family.

This, too, is not pleasant to look upon. But it must be faced by those whose serious intent is to improve the life of all Americans.

Only a minority–less than half–of all Negro children reach the age of 18 having lived all their lives with both of their parents. At this moment, tonight, little less than two-thirds are at home with both of their parents. Probably a majority of all Negro children receive federally-aided public assistance sometime during their childhood.

The family is the cornerstone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled.

So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together–all the rest: schools, and playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern, will never be enough to cut completely the circle of despair and deprivation.

President Johnson cites other powerful forces, including the terrifying force of slums in cultural formation.

Men are shaped by their world. When it is a world of decay, ringed by an invisible wall, when escape is arduous and uncertain, and the saving pressures of a more hopeful society are unknown, it can cripple the youth and it can desolate the men.

Yet among these and other forces, he puts his finger on the family. Here is what I think needs to be noticed at this point in history.

  1. White responsibility. President Johnson recognized the culpable cultural force of centuries of oppression. He did not look within the family exclusively when assigning responsibility, but addressed both personal and social responsibility.
  2. Family culture. The president who was known for his “Great Society” programs recognized that family was the cornerstone of society.
  3. Crippled community. LBJ saw that individuals aren’t islands, and nor are families. Communities where the families have collapsed are relational shanty-towns – and children born into this bear the relational scars.
  4. Work to strengthen the family. This was the sine qua non of renewal and restoration without which “all the rest: schools, and playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern, will never be enough.”

There is, I think, one fatal flaw in the president’s reasoning. It is the notion that we can “create conditions under which most parents will stay together.” He was entirely right about the power of the family for cultural formation. He was spot on concerning the importance of unity and durability of marriage. He nailed the social collapse caused by entire communities in which the family fails. But, I would submit that it is impossible to “create conditions” for marital success without an animating Story that answers the question, “Why should I persevere when it is hard and I don’t want to?”

The family situation in 2012 is worse than it was in 1965. In addition to higher rates of divorce, lower rates of marriage, and higher rates of children born outside marriage, we have prison populations that could hardly have been imagined in 1965. In the intervening years, multiple generations have been initiated into patterns of social life in which marriage is foreign and almost incomprehensible.

The question now stands: Who will have the courage to offer a Story that can answer the Why question with beauty and power? Without that, we will only see an increase of what Kay Hymowitz has already chronicled as Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age.

Childhood adversity and brain development

Posted on by
Reply

There is a growing literature showing that the early experiences of children shape their brain architecture. Two days ago an article in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience added to that literature.

Kids who come from lower socioeconomic families have a harder time ignoring insignificant environmental information than children who come from higher income families, due to the fact that they learn how to pay attention to things differently . . . (from the press release)

The sample size of the study is very small (28 students), and so one can’t put too much weight on it. However, it does suggest that environmental factors in early childhood affect the way that we process information. Specifically:

“These results indicate that children from lower socioeconomic status have to exercise more cognitive control in order to ignore unimportant information than children of higher socioeconomic status.”

Now the question is whether socioeconomic status is the critical variable. Poor children are four times more likely to live in a father-absent home. Is it possible that certain types of home environments not only correlate with poverty, but in fact perpetuate it by their effect on children’s brain development?

Cultivating resourcefulness

Posted on by
Reply

Over Thanksgiving weekend I witnessed resourcefulness in action.

My younger brother came to visit with his family, and helped me solve all sorts of problems. He helped diagnose and fix a faulty latch on my front door. He tried a simple solution for another door that wouldn’t close without a push. And when my van quit on the side of the road as we set off for a hike, he helped me figure out how to get towed. (My AAA membership had expired and the roadside assistance on my car insurance wasn’t in effect so I thought I’d have to pay for the tow truck as well as the repair. My brother pointed out that we might be able to use my dad’s roadside assistance since the service is provided to the person, not just their personal vehicle. Since my dad was with us, we didn’t have to pay for towing!)

That experience pushed on me the question: How can I teach my children resourcefulness?

I think that there are five important elements:

  1. Model it. My kids are my apprentices. Like it or not, they’re going to imitate me in the way that I approach and solve problems.
  2. Think out loud. Talking about the resources available to solve a problem invites my kids into what is going on inside my head. It is the verbalization of modeling.
  3. Point it out. I need to help my kids see just how competent and clever my brother is at solving problems. He does it in ways that I don’t. When they see both his approaches and mine, they’ll have a bigger toolbox from which to draw.
  4. Support it. I need to walk my kids through the process as I let them do it. Resolving conflict among kids is the “easiest” way to do this in that it is the most frequent – and therefore the best opportunity for repetition, creative thinking and coaching.
  5. Expect it. When I have done the first four, then my kids are ready to do it. They have the tools and the experience. Now I can withdraw support (at least on a case by case basis) to let them dive in, use the available resources and come up with a solution. I’m convinced that doing this across the spectrum – in the kitchen, in the garage, on a hiking trail, using the computer etc. – is precisely what cultivates true resourcefulness. Then they’re not just familiar with one set of tools (say, those of the classroom), but a whole array of tools that can be brought to bear on whatever the challenge.

How do you teach your kids resourcefulness? What notable instances of resourcefulness have you seen them demonstrate?

Video: Where does the workforce begin?

Posted on by
Reply

Smart Beginnings Virginia has produced a short video on the “workforce pipeline” that highlights the tremendous influence of the earliest years in promoting learning and preventing educational failure.

httpv://youtu.be/dhUDYBjTYkQ

Videos like these should prompt robust questions:

  1. What role do families, businesses, schools  and other institutions play in early childhood?
  2. Is the “workforce pipeline” an authentic, human way to speak about nurturing young children? What does this say to children about their identity and purpose?

Politics and Parenting

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, Nicholas Kristof became the next op-ed thought leader (following David Brooks’ example) to engage Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character in his article Cuddle Your Kid.

He does it well by calling on our political leaders and candidates to recognize that nation-building hinges on family-building.

Yet the cycle [of poverty] can be broken, and the implication is that the most cost-effective way to address poverty isn’t necessarily housing vouchers or welfare initiatives or prison-building. Rather, it may be early childhood education and parenting programs.

It is not only the most cost effective way to address poverty; it is also the most pivotal way. If all other social institutions are restored, and the family remains in ruins, a community cannot thrive, because the family is the lynchpin of character formation, skill development, and cultural transmission.

But this isn’t just about poverty. It is about virtue. It matters no less what goes on in the homes of affluent children in early childhood. Indeed, it matters more because these children will grow to have even more cultural power to do good or harm to their neighbors. Indeed, they can be the ones who pioneer creative, merciful ways to strengthen and support shattered families.

I don’t hear anyone talking about that: neither of the presidential candidates; nor Paul Tough; nor Messrs Brooks and Kristof. Now is the time for that meaningful conversation to begin.

Zero percent: Home Life and Thriving Schools

Posted on by
1

In Paul Tough’s book How Children Succeed, he recounts a conversation with Elizabeth Dozier, the principal of Christian Fenger High School in Chicago.

When we spoke . . . Dozier said her thinking about schools had been changed by her time at Fenger. “I used to always think that if a school wasn’t performing, that it was strictly because there was a bad principal, or there were bad teachers,” she explained. “But the reality is that at Fenger, we’re a neighborhood school, so we’re just a reflection of the community. And you can’t expect to solve the problems of a school without taking into account what’s happening in the community.” (p5)

That is a wise insight. If you listen to the public dialogue about the education crisis and the achievement gap, the tacit assumption underneath much of it is that the school is the exclusive locus of education (and therefore the problem to be solved).

It is not. The school is vitally important, but it is primarily a reflection of the community. And therefore any attempt to address the needs of the school must address the needs of the community.

Tough and Dozier continued their discussion of the adversities that children in the community face.

A quarter of the female students were either pregnant or already teenage mothers, [Dozier] said. And when I asked her to estimate how many of her students lived with both biological parents, a quizzical look came over her face. “I can’t think of one,” she replied. (ibid)

Zero percent. Statistically that might be inaccurate. Despite the fact that Dozier couldn’t think of a single student, surely there was at least one in her school. How many children live not only with both biological parents, but with both biological parents who are married and were married at the time he or she was born? That might just be a statistical zero at Fenger.

What’s Going On in the Community
This is the elephant in the room that no one seems to have the courage to address publicly (unless it is finger wagging). What is going on in this community, and in virtually every community of endemic poverty in the United States is the devastation of the family. Since the family is the primary locus of cultural transmission and character formation, the devastation of the family is the demolition of the community, and the culture.

Any serious, courageous attempt to combat cyclical poverty must not only acknowledge this, but ardently seek to undo it. That means having the courage to say emphatically, “This is not the way things ought to be,” and “Because this is not the way things ought to be, we are willing to walk with those dying in it and call their children to lifelong, chaste marital faithfulness.”

The Other Zero Percent
I know almost no one who has the courage and integrity to boldly make both of those statements and live them out. It is that hard. It is like committing to live with the maimed in a mine field while slowly and painstakingly marking, disarming, and removing the land mines. That is the measure of the virtue required to serve and renew a shattered community.

The Relational Approach

Posted on by
Reply

A child’s early experiences affect every dimension of relationship, learning and health. In The Psych Approach New York Times columnist David Brooks highlights the correlation between adverse child experiences and long term life outcomes. Here’s the thirty thousand foot view: compared to those with no experience of childhood trauma, individuals who had suffered four traumatic childhood experiences were:

  • Seven times more likely to be alcoholics as adults
  • Six times more likely to have had sex before age 15
  • Twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer
  • Four times as likely to suffer emphysema

“Later research suggested that only 3 percent of students with an ACE score [number of traumatic childhood experiences] of 0 had learning or behavioral problems in school. Among students with an ACE score of 4 or higher, 51 percent had those problems.” In short, your early experiences wire you for life, impacting your relationships, health, and ability to learn and thrive.

David Brooks calls this “The Psych Approach” because it turns attention toward the psychological impacts of “economic, social and family breakdowns.” In terms of treatment, the psych approach is probably a good description. However, with respect to prevention and restoration, The Relational Approach would be a more apt title. To break the patterns of family, social and economic breakdown, we must acknowledge that relationships are paramount – not least the relationship of a child to his or her father.

  • Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor.
  • Infant mortality rates are 1.8 times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers.

Brooks concludes his column: “Maybe it’s time for people in all these different fields to get together in a room and make a concerted push against the psychological barriers to success.” It is indeed time for to bring people together to make a push against the relational barriers to human development and flourishing communities.