‘Old school’ upbringing and education is often characterised by not understanding what children are capable of doing or understanding, or not giving them the necessary support and respect they deserve. But does this mean that children are underestimated – or overestimated? The answer is less clear and more interesting than you think.
Let’s back up for a moment. My premise is that it makes sense to adopt what might be called a “working with” – as opposed to “doing to” – approach to children. This means relying on love and reason, seeing children as more than sets of behaviors to be managed and manipulated, and treating unpleasant behaviors as problems to be solved (or, if you prefer, moments to be taught) rather than infractions to be punished.
Traditionalists, however, raise the following objection: since young children are not yet capable of reasoning or understanding long-term consequences, we should tell them what to do and use rewards or punishments to make sure they are properly socialized. In essence, the developmental limitations of children are invoked to justify the prescription of “doing”. But the irony is that many developmental psychologists and educators who have a good understanding of how children’s abilities change as they grow tend to reject this prescription.
The argument of developmentalists (like mine) is that no child is too young to be treated with respect. The child’s point of view should be taken seriously and their choices respected whenever possible. Of course, the immaturity of young children may require more patience from us. Yes, they may need more protection and monitoring, more structure and guidance. But none of this justifies relying on control and an overwhelming focus on eliciting mindless obedience. The job of raising and teaching very young children can be challenging, but it is not unrealistic. (I have offered practical advice on how this can be done, and so have many others, including infant and toddler experts such as Magda Gerber and Alicia Lieberman.)
In fact, we can go further: our attitude towards young children affects their development. Imposing our will on them (on the grounds of their immaturity) reduces the likelihood that they will acquire the very social and moral attitudes whose absence we used to justify such treatment. If we want them to consider the needs and points of view of others, we must gently guide them in doing so. If we want them to rely on cooperation rather than force, we must set that example in the way we treat them. In contrast, offering rewards for compliance or punishment for non-compliance makes it more difficult to promote other-centered reasoning and compassion. Just because it takes time to achieve these goals does not mean we should move in the wrong direction.
The attempt to justify the “doing” approach on the grounds that children are too young to “work” with is ironic for another reason. Parents and teachers who punish children are likely to overestimate the capacities of young children, i.e. they do not notice their developmental limitations. They either don’t understand or simply deny the fact that children under a certain age cannot be expected to eat neatly, keep quiet in public places, or always tell the truth. Young children do not yet possess the skills that would allow us to hold them accountable for their behavior as we would an adult or even an older child.
A pair of studies conducted by researchers from the University of Texas and New York University confirmed that parents who “attribute greater competence and responsibility to misbehaving children” are more likely to get upset with them, judge them and punish them. Such parents become frustrated by what they perceive as inappropriate behaviour and react, in effect, with violent reprisals against young children for being young children – looking at what can be heartbreaking. In contrast, parents who understand the limitations of children’s development tend to prefer “calm explanations and reasoning” in response to the same actions.
So what is it? Do parents tend to overestimate or underestimate their children by “doing”? Are they somehow able to rationalize their old-school discipline? Or are they somehow guilty of doing both at the same time?
A similar over/under dilemma manifests itself in classrooms. It makes its presence felt, first, through standardized testing. Most teachers can easily name a few students who they know are impressive thinkers but who just don’t score well on these tests. Press further, and then teachers can think of others in their classrooms who do well on tests but whose critical and creative thinking skills are nothing to write home about. Test results thus overestimate the real abilities of some children and underestimate those of others – probably because tests tend to measure the least important kinds of thinking. Indeed, several studies have found that higher scores on various tests are significantly correlated with more superficial approaches to learning.