SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new federal report recommends that schools emphasize building children's "self-regulation" skills in order to increase opportunities for student success in a number of areas. The recommendation is one of several in the report, the fourth in a series on self-regulation research and practice from the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Researchers have zeroed in on the importance of self-regulation skills, which allow children to manage their thoughts and feelings, control impulses, and problem-solve.
"Self-regulation affects wellbeing across the lifespan, from mental health and emotional wellbeing to academic achievement, physical health, and socioeconomic success," said Desiree Murray, associate director of research at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute and lead author of the report. "Unfortunately, prolonged or pronounced stress and adversity, including poverty and trauma, can delay children's self-regulation development."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:49AM
I remember it being called "self-discipline" and being taught with a paddle or a belt. It's served me well in life, though I probably could have used a few more swats.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:58AM
Well that will be an interesting circumstance, no?
Instill discipline without any methods to enforce discipline.
(For the record, I find spanking children over 6 to be idiotic).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:23PM
We didn't spank our kids, but when they were very small, immediate physical feedback was occasionally appropriate. A thwack, when the kid throws the bowl of soup off the table, that sort of thing.
Once the kids reach an age where they can reason and communicate - your limit of age six is fine, maybe even a bit late - physical feedback should no longer be necessary, at least for most kids. If it is, you may have already failed your job as a parent.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:16PM
Continued physical feed-back at that point instills a 'healthy' fear of authority.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:33PM
Every child is different, some get labels like "Autistic" or "communication impaired" where some form of physical communication is necessary because the verbal channel just isn't effective. And the age limit of 6 is nice for children who fall in the middle of the bell curve, but probably 50% or more of the population might have a more appropriate age of 7 or more, or 5 or less.
Then we have the Mighty Buzzards of the world who were trained with the belt, and if it was good enough for them, it must be good enough for all children everywhere. Problem is, not all parents have enough empathy with their kids to know when the belt is doing more harm than good, it's an easy line to cross and the negative consequences can last for generations.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:52PM
I know all kids are different, so I don't judge parents (unless they're actually abusive) -- if some small amount of physical reinforcement helps with your kid, I can't judge.
But I do think that many parents (not all) resort to such measures out of frustration, often because they too aren't consistent or lack control in their own behaviors when it comes to discipline, and their kids can easily sense that.
I learned how NOT to discipline from my mother, who never spanked me or otherwise hit me (that I can recall), but who would get very worked up and start shouting to try to gain control over kids. But that seemed somewhat haphazard, and she'd make threats that were very inconsistently enforced -- "You won't get X EVER AGAIN!!" The result, of course, is that I realized this even as a young kid and even found it mildly amusing at times to see her get worked up. Not a recipe for discipline.
When my own kid came along, I resolved NEVER to raise my voice with him except deliberately. It's really hard sometimes as parents, because kids do ridiculous things, very frustrating things, creating huge messes, etc. But shouting at them arbitrarily out of your own frustration does NO good. I only ever raised my voice deliberately, generally to signal something that was actually dangerous for the kid. It was so unexpected for him and he was so shocked (and perhaps a bit frightened) when I did so, that often only one such warning was necessary for him to realize the severity of what he was doing.
In terms of spanking/physical reinforcement, I personally found the "time out" system to be perfectly adequate, without ever resorting to hitting. Kids are generally capable of "reason" of some sort by age 2 or so (at least in terms of consequences for bad actions), and at some point we introduced a "counting" system before the time out. And it is a sort of "physical" reinforcement in the sense that you have to move the kid, so it goes beyond verbal stuff.
The key, from my perspective, is just consistency, whatever your disciplinary method. If you say something will happen, you MUST follow through. And you have to find something suitably unpleasant -- for me, the "time out" was always done in such a way that it was unpleasant. The few times that it seemed like the kid was still laughing and not taking it seriously, we had ways to make the time out situation seem MORE unpleasant (removing stuffed animals that he found soothing, etc.). By the time the kid was 5, we almost never had to actually enforce a time-out anymore -- just threatening it or starting the count was plenty motivation.
And, particularly when young, there CANNOT be exceptions -- again, consistency. So many times it seems like parents just let things go because it's too inconvenient or disruptive or embarrassing to discipline -- you're at the grandparents, or at a friend's house, or out at a restaurant, or whatever, and you just "let it go" that time. Big mistake.
For my kid, if he acted out at a restaurant (and I'm not talking about running around the room or whatever -- I mean just started having a minor fit, making too much noise, etc.), it was a "time out" in the car. Out of the restaurant. Immediately. We started doing that even before he turned 2. Was that a pain to do? Yeah. Did it disrupt our dinner sometimes with friends, etc.? Yes. But by age 3 (and only a handful of such actions) he had figured it out, and we were able to take him to upscale fancy restaurants for meals lasting a couple of hours, and we'd get random complements from other restaurant guests about how they couldn't believe how well-behaved he was. (And compared to the common situation today where it seems many parents let their kids wander randomly around restaurants, playing games, pestering other people, making disruptive noise, etc., he certainly was an "angel.")
Again, I'm NOT saying such things will work for every kid. I just think being consistent, ALWAYS following through on whatever disciplinary penalties you threaten, and always remaining in control of your own emotions and frustration, will get you a long way with little kids. If kids sense that they can ever "get attention" or "get a rise" from you -- even yelling at them -- without sufficiently unpleasant consequences, they WILL take advantage of that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:15PM
One last thing -- I should say that the "time out" for us was also a kind of "last resort." In most cases with younger kids, you often just need to "redirect" behavior, encouraging them to do something more positive, rather than continuing the negative behavior. Even a simple distraction can often be enough. When he became older and could understand, we'd threaten various consequences (losing privileges, etc.). It was only when those things didn't work -- or the kid was just out of control and needed a break to be removed from the situation -- that "time out" became the option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:54PM
Thank you for your posts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:59AM
It still works wonderfully as punctuation for the lesson of the day right up until they're out of the house. The shame of being treated like a child alone should help cement what you were trying to teach.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:36PM
For the record, I find spanking children over 6 to be idiotic
If your child still exhibits behavior that would require spanking after the age of six then you have failed as a parent or your child needs to become a life-long customer of Big Pharma.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:08PM
Yep, it's the job of parents.
The hard question (and no, I don't have an answer) is: What are schools supposed to do with kids who parents fail to instill self-discipline?
I mean, you don't want the barbarians distracting the students who might be able to learn something. On the other hand, throwing them onto the streets isn't a solution either. Punish the parents? Most likely, these are exactly the parents who are already on the bottom of the societal barrel.
No easy answers, but I really don't think schools are able to solve this problem.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:38PM
Schools should teach children knowledge and critical thinking skills, not behavioral norms. That is the job of the parents (as you stated).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:24PM
The problem is that those children's non-adherence to certain behavioural norms may impede not only the ability of the school to teach those kids, but even its ability to teach the other kids. So what should the school do in that case?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:49PM
So what should the school do in that case?
Suspend or expel them. There are schools specifically designed to deal with these types of students but regular schools (and the students attending them) should not have to deal with this type of behavior disrupting the learning environment. I'm not talking about the kids who don't want to play kickball, or who are socially awkward, or who don't trust "the establishment". Just the trouble makers who repeatedly interrupt the learning process for the rest of the class or school.
There are a few kids of students who are treated as "problems":
- Those with genuine behavioral issues that need special education and medical care. These children are not trying to be a problem and should be treated as such.
- Those who are acting out to seek attention. These children generally don't like the extra disciplinary attention they get in schools for problem kids and they get their act together within a year or two.
- Those who are never going to try to interact with society in an acceptable fashion. These children will grow up to be ongoing problems.
Removing the true problem kids - the bottom two categories on the list - from the regular schools results in improved learning for those who are capable of not disrupting the leaning environment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:14AM
If schools are really about critical thinking and education (they're not), then they shouldn't teach mindless adherence to behavioral norms. In fact, I'd argue that they already do so, just not explicitly.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:52PM
you don't want the barbarians distracting the students who might be able to learn something.
In the old days a lot of tracking went on, and they improperly mixed the learning disabled kids with the miscreants, which probably did neither any good. A new track system where miscreants are distinctly separated from the disabled would be fair and effective.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:53PM
In the old days, they also separated out the intelligent children. I had an IQ test before third grade, and that determined my placement in advanced classes for the next six years (really for the rest of my life - I ended up getting a PhD). I never even saw any of the barbarians or the disabled until high school, when we started having mixed gym classes with the general population. I had a mixed German class one year, and I got to see the barbarians (well, the ones who signed up for foreign language) up close. I didn't understand why we had to waste time on their discipline problems when I was ready to move on and learn new things. I ended up reading some Goethe by the end of first year, but we could have done so much more without the distractions of the useless kids.
Nowadays, that's rarely done. The smart kids are lumped in with the average and below-average ("mainstreaming"), and they waste a lot of time sitting there in class waiting for the stupid to catch up. It's terribly unfair to anyone who isn't slow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:23AM
In my experience, the "smart kids" are mostly just kids who can memorize more information more quickly and spew it all back on homework assignments and tests. I was in advanced classes, and truly intelligent people were rare even in that environment due to the extremely low standards that schools have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:57AM
Why not? Actions have consequences. Children should not be sheltered from learning this most fundamental of lessons.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:56PM
Perhaps if the blows weren't administered to you head, things would have worked out better for you :P
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:56AM
That's funny, that is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:30PM
If it's administered to you, then it's just plain 'discipline'!
IME as an adult (chronologically, at least) without quite enough self-control, self-discipline can't be imposed upon you. It's something you must learn for yourself.
In fact, having it imposed can be counterproductive: the more you get used to someone else checking up on you, the less you learn to do it for yourself.
But if that's not the way to teach self-discipline, what is? How do you responsible, mature, self-controlled folks (come on, there must be some of you here) learn that???
[sig redacted]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:59PM
the more you get used to someone else checking up on you, the less you learn to do it for yourself.
Curious if you were in the military. Based on observation during basic, there exists at least one strategy that is likely to teach self discipline.
Of course that leads right into arguments about somewhere between 99% and 90% of the population aren't tough enough to survive the training. Perhaps the tiny minority of the population who graduate basic training are somehow self selected to be highly susceptible, perhaps unconsciously, to self discipline. Its clouded by sending kids thru, so at least some of the 18 yr olds probably would have naturally un-fucked-up themselves even if they had stayed home and played video games instead of going to basic. Oh and last but not least its possible its all cognitive bias that everyone thinks basic looks like it teaches self discipline but maybe learning how to march and shoot and first aid is a simulation of self discipline.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:55AM
Repeated from above: Regular discipline does the teaching, self-discipline is what you learn.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:14PM
Self-discipline is more about controlling one's own actions to the benefit of community or society. Self-regulation is about controlling one's own actions to the benefit of self (or more precisely future self). When taught in such a way, it can increase compliance with the principle, because the perceived benefit is primarily one's own interest, instead of primarily other's interest and secondarily one's own interest. TLDR: It makes people more open to it because people are selfish
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:43PM
bogus, arbitrary distinction, thank you very much . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:20PM
People's selfishness often depends on the situation and what values they have been taught. There is no easy shortcut to making something matter to a kid.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:55PM
being taught with a paddle or a belt. It's served me well in life, though I probably could have used a few more swats.
And the mighty butthurt comes out in favor of beating children.
Who would have guessed he would advocate for doing to helpless children what would be considered a felony if done to an adult?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:53AM
Corporal punishment done correctly is not abuse, it is punctuation to the lesson being taught.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by oldmac31310 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:09PM
Explains a lot.
(Score: 1) by BenFenner on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:11PM
Being self-disciplined means you were not taught with a paddle or a belt, or any traditional discipline from outside factors. Being self-disciplined means you behave[d] in a socially acceptable manner due to a code of conduct you created by yourself, for yourself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:52AM
Regular discipline is what teaches you. Self-discipline is what you learn.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:54AM
Indeed. You need to know how to defend yourself from an early age. Shooting, stabbing, or simply fighting back against someone who is trying to assault you is a good way to learn how to do that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:28PM
Good luck with that. I don't know anyone whose dad couldn't beat the complete hell out of them while they were still living at home if it became necessary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.