Supporting Self-Regulation through Guidance and Problem Solving
(Text Version of Live Lecture)
Rudolf Dreikurs (1897-1972): "New Tradition in Child Rearing"
(Today, known as Positive Discipline)
Kathy A. Bobula, Ph.D.
Rudolf Dreikurs was a Viennese psychiatrist who directed a child guidance center utilizing the methods of psychologist Alfred Adler. Dreikurs immigrated to the U.S. in 1937 in order to avoid Nazi persecution. Dreikurs was “a tireless advocate for relationships based on mutual respect, both at home and at school.” (The Positive Discipline Association, 2012)
He wrote about child rearing and parenting in the 1950s and 60s, when the world was in a major period of social change – where people were demanding a say in their affairs. Dreikurs saw that groups of people who had in the past been suppressed and repressed were openly rebelling and demanding freedom from authoritarian domination. It is interesting to look at Dreikurs’ work today from our current perspective of yet another period of pro-democracy movements, such as the “Arab Spring” democracy movements beginning in 2010-2011.
Movement:
Dreikurs saw that people were moving away from authoritarian approaches in the workplace and toward more democratic approaches, such as allowing workers to participate in the processes of problem solving and decision making. He saw that there were more people who were being asked to function without a real boss who was right there supervising them. This, of course, requires significant self-control on the part of the unsupervised!
As a case in point about functioning without supervision and needing self-control, think about driving. If you drive, can you honestly say you have NEVER exceeded the posted speed limit? Then, think about when you ALWAYS go the speed limit – when there is a police officer around!! In the case of speeding, most people only obey the law when they think they might get caught! Most of us do not follow the speed limit even though we know it is safer and that we should follow the law at all times – even when no one is looking!
Dreikurs’ observations of the changing workplace in the U.S. have remained the case for more and more people, especially those in a profession. We are expected to maintain ethical and appropriate behavior on the job without being directly supervised. Exhibiting this type of self-control is a critical element of having respect for the rights of others. We are being asked to be responsible for the impact of our own behavior and choices on others. Think of all the professions where we work on our own, without constant, direct supervision: college teachers, service technicians, doctors, private contractors, coaches, barbers, and chefs. We depend on them to be professional and ethical – without being watched.
This is where Dreikurs started to be concerned about “how” we raise and educate children in a democracy. When he looked, he saw that parents and schools were overwhelmingly using authoritarian approaches with children, which taught children “not to get caught.” Dreikurs’ work was devoted to teaching parents and teachers how to use approaches with children that prepare them to function with respect for the rights of others, and without a boss. His “new” tradition in childrearing is aimed at preparing children to know how to live in a democracy.
Dreikurs and Grey said that you “cannot stop children from doing what they can do...but we CAN teach… that every act has a consequence for which they are responsible.”(Dreikurs & Grey, 1970, 7) (emphasis mine) Dreikurs and Grey’s approach had the child learn about the needs of reality – from both the social and the natural world – rather than the power of adults. They proposed approaches to child rearing using techniques that today we call Positive Discipline, which advocates using kindness with firmness. This approach is highly authoritative where the parent has appropriate expectations for more mature behavior in a context of respectful communication and a high degree of warmth. When children do not respond to positive discipline, Dreikurs suggests that we let natural consequences happen, or impose appropriate “logical” consequences.
Two most important techniques:
Dreikurs describes what he calls the two most important techniques for teaching responsibility. The first is the use of encouragement and the second is the use of natural and logical consequences.
In his first technique, Dreikurs suggested that we try to replace praise and rewards with Encouragement. Now, why does he say this? Let’s take a look at it.
When do we reward someone? Usually rewards are given for success. Praise is also doled out for doing something very well, for winning. This means that if you are not successful at something you are doing then that means you have failed, or are a failure. This means that under the reward system, you are worthwhile only when successful. It doesn’t make any difference how hard you worked, how much effort you put in, or how close you came to success or winning.
Dreikurs sees this as demoralizing. He asks us to replace the praise and rewards with encouragement and focus on doing the task, not just on the result. Encouragement can be given throughout the process, not just at the end. We can encourage effort, persistence, effective problem solving and so on. It shows that you have faith in the child, and allows them to have faith in themselves.
With encouragement, we can focus on the task, and not the child as a person. For example, if I ask my child to put away the toys they left in the middle of the kitchen floor, the child may not be happy to do it, but complies. In fact, my child may feel angry at me for interrupting their new activity in order to put away the things they had been using. If I come back and see that the toys are put away, I can comment on how clear the floor is now and how I’ll be able to start setting the table for dinner. The child can then reflect on the meaning of putting the toys away and can decide that even though they didn’t want to do it, they DID do a good job of it, and feel competent and helpful.
Encouragement comes with effort and intent. Sometimes a child may try to help, say, clear the dishes from the table and may accidently drop food on the floor. We can acknowledge the intent of helping and then help the child in cleaning up the mess. This encourages the child to keep trying to be helpful.
If a child only gets attention for success or winning, a sense of fear can develop – fear that he or she might not be able to be successful or a winner in the future. With encouragement, the child can afford to take risks; can try, without fearing failure.
Finally, encouragement supports children to make their own decisions. Children, who fear failure, do not want to risk making the “wrong” decision, so they always defer to their parents, teachers, and other adults to decide for them. We can encourage children to think through a problem and come to a decision, and then look back and see if it was a good one, and if not, ask why.
Dreikurs’ second most important technique is to replace punishment with Logical and Natural Consequences. The use of logical and natural consequences happens after you have tried to modify a behavior through talking about it. Logical and natural consequences work by having the child experience the unpleasant results of their behavior.
Natural consequences just happen; adults are not involved. If you do not have an umbrella or rain coat or hat when going out in the rain, you will get wet. Getting wet is a natural consequence. If you set your cracker on the low table and then leave the room, it is likely that the dog will get the cracker and eat it. That is usually the last time you set a cracker down on that table!
Natural consequences just happen, and they are powerful teachers! This is why you look around your seat before leaving a restaurant or the library. Once you have left and lost something, you remember to check. However, we cannot, as responsible adults allow ALL natural consequences to occur! For example, you cannot let a child run out in front of a car to learn what a risky and dangerous idea that is! You cannot let a child eat a poisonous plant to discover that it will make you sick. So, when we cannot let a child learn from natural consequences, we can turn to “logical” consequences. (However, Dreikurs points out that if you are in a power struggle, only natural consequences work. Logical ones seem punitive to the child.)
Logical consequences are those which we impose in order for the child to learn the unpleasant consequences of their behavior. They cannot be just any consequence, though. For learning to occur, the consequence must be logically related to the misbehavior.
For example, if a child keeps crashing the tricycle into the wall, he or she will lose the privilege of riding it for the rest of the day. The consequence is directly related to the misbehavior. Moreover, the consequence must be logical to the child. For learning to occur the child must be able to understand how their behavior and the consequence are related and “make sense” even if they are not happy about it. They must be able to understand that crashing the bike can injure the bike as well as the child.
A school-aged child who plays video games instead of doing homework can easily understand “why” the video game privilege gets taken away until all homework is done. Taking away use of his/her bike would NOT make sense, however. Bike riding was not interfering in getting homework done. This would feel punitive and arbitrary to the child.
We will return to look closer at Logical Consequences in a little more detail, but first let’s take a look at problem solving to see what can happen to prevent discord and power struggles between adults and children, and to support the learning of responsibility.
Problem solving:
As part of an approach to using Positive Discipline, Jane Nelsen suggests having regular family meetings for solving problems. This can happen in a classroom or other group also, with regular, if not daily, classroom meetings. Says Nelsen (2012),
“When children are involved in the problem-solving process they have ownership and are more likely to follow solutions they have helped create. When a solution doesn’t work, try again. If children are too young to participate in [a] family [or classroom] meeting (usually under the age of four), they are too young for ‘responsibility’ in any case. Keep teaching without expecting immediate cooperation.”
In teaching about problem solving, I once had a student who was a soccer coach for a middle school team. He and another fellow were coaches for this team. They struggled to get the team members to cooperate, practice, work together, etc. to no avail, and didn’t know what to do about it. Then in this class, we started looking at Dreikurs’ work and Positive Discipline. I shared an outline of a way to do problem solving in groups or with an individual child. This student/coach decided to try this approach and, after doing so, reported back to the class that it had turned the team around! The team members were more involved in decision making and were really engaged in the progress of the whole team. His “testimony” to the rest of the class was very powerful.
The following is the problem solving method that I shared and which he and his fellow coach utilized with their team. This approach can be used with a child (or in that case, with anyone!) one-on-one or in a small group, prior to employing natural or logical consequences. We always want to start by talking about problems and seeing if we can come up with a mutually agreed upon solution. In this way, everyone can feel “heard” and authentically included.
The following eight steps to problem solving are not a rigid formula, but are guidelines for constructive problem solving that involve all parties in formulating the solution. It teaches participation in the process, an essential component to democracy.
1. Talk to the child (person) directly. As adults, we often talk to everyone else than the person with whom we have the problem! This first step is often neglected, or avoided.
2. State the problem or concern and tell why. If you cannot clearly state what the problem is and why it is a problem, then you need to back up and re-think why you are reacting or feeling as you do. It may not be the child’s problem at all.
3. Ask the child for their point of view on the concern. Very often, adults neglect getting the child’s “side” of the issue; instead, they just “tell” the child what is wrong. This latter approach is authoritarian and breaks off communication. In asking the child for their view on the problem, you might find out something you never considered.
Take, for example, a child who never gets their math homework done and thus has to stay in the classroom during recess to complete it. This child may be doing this on purpose due to being victimized by a bully on the playground! The child may have been afraid to tell you about this.
4. Find agreement on what the problem is & whose problem it is. Once everyone has shared their point of view on the stated problem, take some time to reconsider the nature of the problem itself as well as the source of the problem. Work to agree on if there really is a problem, and if so, what it is and whose problem it is.
Children and adults can sometimes have differences of opinion on what “looks good” or “works” in clothing selection, time management, room arrangement, storage solutions, etc. Look at the actual impact of each approach before making any decisions.
5. Brainstorm some possible solutions that would work and which are acceptable to the parent(s). Parents are still in charge and must approve of the solution decided on. Once again, all solutions from all individuals should be seriously considered. If parents reject a solution, they must explain why, otherwise it seems arbitrary.
6. Let the child pick which one to try, if possible. If there is more than one possible solution, let the child decide which one to start with. This gives the child some control.
7. Implement it-stick to it (give it time- children don’t learn to talk in a couple of weeks – remember this!). While the child is trying out the solution, you also need to ask about and get an agreement on “reminding.” This should be up to the child, whether or not to be reminded.
8. Review progress after you’ve tried it out. Once you have given the chosen solution ample time (several weeks), get together and have all persons share how they think it has gone, and evaluate the solution. If it is working, keep going and come back again in several weeks to check again.
If it is not working, go back to step 5 and try one of the other solutions, or brainstorm more ideas. If the child fails to employ the solution chosen, revisit it to find out why.
If you try this type of problem solving and give it time, but the child still does not follow the solution agreed upon, then, Dreikurs suggests that we move into using Logical Consequences.
Logical Consequences (focus is on learning)
Let’s start with an example, that of family laundry!
For the sake of description, let’s say it is my family and I have been having a problem with laundry. The rest of the family members are lax in putting their dirty clothes in the basket designed for that. When I go to do the laundry, I have to search the house for all the clothes that need to be washed.
I’ve asked, reminded, and put up notes. Nothing has worked, so I’ve decided to use Logical Consequences. I call a family meeting and let everyone know that I’m having this problem, and it is taking me almost an hour to “find” all the dirty clothes, towels, etc. that need to be washed. I propose a solution which they all agree to. On Saturday mornings, I’ll be doing laundry sometime around 9:00 a.m. For a couple of weeks, I’ll make a bunch of reminders about the new system. The key part is that from here on out, I will wash all the laundry that gets in the basket by laundry time. If it is not in the basket, it won’t be washed.
The first time someone forgets to put their dirty clothes in the basket, they will have to face the week with few clean clothes – or at least, fewer choices. Once they run out of clean clothes to wear, they will begin to remember to put them in the basket! The solution is logically related to the problem, and the child (or other family members) will experience the reality of the social order – in this case, about laundry.
In another example of logical consequences, my dentist one year sent a reminder card of my upcoming appointment. It had a cartoon on it that showed a little boy at the bathroom sink with a piece of dental floss in his hands. His mother is at the door and she says, “Only floss the teeth you want to keep.” Logical consequences supreme! When I shared this example in a class, a student with a 4 year old son told it to him.
She had been struggling to get him to brush and floss his teeth. So when she told him to only brush and floss the teeth he wanted to keep, he was stunned! He really thought about it and then told his mother that he had decided to take care of all of his teeth. He went on to point to each tooth and named the favorite food that each one of them was responsible for chewing!!! So, even young children can understand the “logical” consequences of behavior if we find a good way to explain it to them.
Social Methods:
Dreikurs had some social methods which support logical consequences, including that logical consequences imply no element of moral judgment. We are not moralizing, we are imposing a consequence that will teach the responsible behavior through experience. Because the focus is on learning, logical consequences are concerned with the present and future, and not with the past. Positive discipline does not go back over a list of past “wrongs” as this is self-defeating. We cannot change the past, but we can change current and future behavior. This gives us hope. We can encourage change. The child is not “bad” but behavior has consequences.
Because the focus is on learning, the voice can be friendly when consequences are evoked, as logical consequences are based on good will. The intent is for the child to learn from mistakes and mistaken choices. The adult, however, can show regret about the child’s situation. “I’m sorry that you have no clean clothes to wear to school today.”
Dreikurs suggests some other social methods to support positive discipline and logical consequences. The first is the “no nagging” rule! Learn not to talk at times, so you can allow consequence to happen. If you want children to learn from experience, you must let them have the full experience. If you decide on a solution to a problem, remember to ask about “reminders” to clarify if the child does or does not want to be reminded of the thing he or she is trying to do.
Logical consequences are not a threat of punishment. They are a method for teaching responsibility. So, there is no arguing, no anger, no nagging. Parents impose the consequence and then let it happen. The dirty laundry stays dirty for the next week!
Dreikurs also reminds parents to avoid fostering competition between siblings, as it can destroy their relationship. Parents should treat each child as an individual and avoid comparisons of them and their behavior.
And finally, we are also reminded not to overprotect a child or do for a child what they can do for themselves. This deprives the child of experiencing their own strength. It is discouraging. Let the child know that you trust their ability. But, also, teach needed skills – in all areas, cognitive, emotional, social, and physical – to support the child’s abilities and learning.
In closing:
Jane Nelsen, in discussing Positive Discipline, based on the work of Dreikurs, poses the following question:
“Where did we ever get the crazy idea that in order to make children do better, first we have to make them feel worse? Children do better when they feel better.” (Positive Discipline, 2012,1)
Sources:
Dreikurs, R. & Grey, L. (1970). A Parent’s Guide to Child Discipline. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc.
Dreikurs, R. & Stolz, V. (1964). Children: The Challenge. New York: Meridith Press.
Hamdorf, K.G. (n.d.). Discipline: Natural and Logical Consequences. Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State University. Retrieved 10/25/2001.
Nelsen, J. (2012). Teaching Responsibility: When does it happen? (Posted 3/30/2011) www.positivediscipline.com Retrieved 7/12/2012.
The Positive Discipline Association. (2012). What is Positive Discipline? www.positivediscipline.com. Retrieved 7/12/2012.
2012
Rudolf Dreikurs (1897-1972): "New Tradition in Child Rearing"
(Today, known as Positive Discipline)
Kathy A. Bobula, Ph.D.
Rudolf Dreikurs was a Viennese psychiatrist who directed a child guidance center utilizing the methods of psychologist Alfred Adler. Dreikurs immigrated to the U.S. in 1937 in order to avoid Nazi persecution. Dreikurs was “a tireless advocate for relationships based on mutual respect, both at home and at school.” (The Positive Discipline Association, 2012)
He wrote about child rearing and parenting in the 1950s and 60s, when the world was in a major period of social change – where people were demanding a say in their affairs. Dreikurs saw that groups of people who had in the past been suppressed and repressed were openly rebelling and demanding freedom from authoritarian domination. It is interesting to look at Dreikurs’ work today from our current perspective of yet another period of pro-democracy movements, such as the “Arab Spring” democracy movements beginning in 2010-2011.
Movement:
Dreikurs saw that people were moving away from authoritarian approaches in the workplace and toward more democratic approaches, such as allowing workers to participate in the processes of problem solving and decision making. He saw that there were more people who were being asked to function without a real boss who was right there supervising them. This, of course, requires significant self-control on the part of the unsupervised!
As a case in point about functioning without supervision and needing self-control, think about driving. If you drive, can you honestly say you have NEVER exceeded the posted speed limit? Then, think about when you ALWAYS go the speed limit – when there is a police officer around!! In the case of speeding, most people only obey the law when they think they might get caught! Most of us do not follow the speed limit even though we know it is safer and that we should follow the law at all times – even when no one is looking!
Dreikurs’ observations of the changing workplace in the U.S. have remained the case for more and more people, especially those in a profession. We are expected to maintain ethical and appropriate behavior on the job without being directly supervised. Exhibiting this type of self-control is a critical element of having respect for the rights of others. We are being asked to be responsible for the impact of our own behavior and choices on others. Think of all the professions where we work on our own, without constant, direct supervision: college teachers, service technicians, doctors, private contractors, coaches, barbers, and chefs. We depend on them to be professional and ethical – without being watched.
This is where Dreikurs started to be concerned about “how” we raise and educate children in a democracy. When he looked, he saw that parents and schools were overwhelmingly using authoritarian approaches with children, which taught children “not to get caught.” Dreikurs’ work was devoted to teaching parents and teachers how to use approaches with children that prepare them to function with respect for the rights of others, and without a boss. His “new” tradition in childrearing is aimed at preparing children to know how to live in a democracy.
Dreikurs and Grey said that you “cannot stop children from doing what they can do...but we CAN teach… that every act has a consequence for which they are responsible.”(Dreikurs & Grey, 1970, 7) (emphasis mine) Dreikurs and Grey’s approach had the child learn about the needs of reality – from both the social and the natural world – rather than the power of adults. They proposed approaches to child rearing using techniques that today we call Positive Discipline, which advocates using kindness with firmness. This approach is highly authoritative where the parent has appropriate expectations for more mature behavior in a context of respectful communication and a high degree of warmth. When children do not respond to positive discipline, Dreikurs suggests that we let natural consequences happen, or impose appropriate “logical” consequences.
Two most important techniques:
Dreikurs describes what he calls the two most important techniques for teaching responsibility. The first is the use of encouragement and the second is the use of natural and logical consequences.
In his first technique, Dreikurs suggested that we try to replace praise and rewards with Encouragement. Now, why does he say this? Let’s take a look at it.
When do we reward someone? Usually rewards are given for success. Praise is also doled out for doing something very well, for winning. This means that if you are not successful at something you are doing then that means you have failed, or are a failure. This means that under the reward system, you are worthwhile only when successful. It doesn’t make any difference how hard you worked, how much effort you put in, or how close you came to success or winning.
Dreikurs sees this as demoralizing. He asks us to replace the praise and rewards with encouragement and focus on doing the task, not just on the result. Encouragement can be given throughout the process, not just at the end. We can encourage effort, persistence, effective problem solving and so on. It shows that you have faith in the child, and allows them to have faith in themselves.
With encouragement, we can focus on the task, and not the child as a person. For example, if I ask my child to put away the toys they left in the middle of the kitchen floor, the child may not be happy to do it, but complies. In fact, my child may feel angry at me for interrupting their new activity in order to put away the things they had been using. If I come back and see that the toys are put away, I can comment on how clear the floor is now and how I’ll be able to start setting the table for dinner. The child can then reflect on the meaning of putting the toys away and can decide that even though they didn’t want to do it, they DID do a good job of it, and feel competent and helpful.
Encouragement comes with effort and intent. Sometimes a child may try to help, say, clear the dishes from the table and may accidently drop food on the floor. We can acknowledge the intent of helping and then help the child in cleaning up the mess. This encourages the child to keep trying to be helpful.
If a child only gets attention for success or winning, a sense of fear can develop – fear that he or she might not be able to be successful or a winner in the future. With encouragement, the child can afford to take risks; can try, without fearing failure.
Finally, encouragement supports children to make their own decisions. Children, who fear failure, do not want to risk making the “wrong” decision, so they always defer to their parents, teachers, and other adults to decide for them. We can encourage children to think through a problem and come to a decision, and then look back and see if it was a good one, and if not, ask why.
Dreikurs’ second most important technique is to replace punishment with Logical and Natural Consequences. The use of logical and natural consequences happens after you have tried to modify a behavior through talking about it. Logical and natural consequences work by having the child experience the unpleasant results of their behavior.
Natural consequences just happen; adults are not involved. If you do not have an umbrella or rain coat or hat when going out in the rain, you will get wet. Getting wet is a natural consequence. If you set your cracker on the low table and then leave the room, it is likely that the dog will get the cracker and eat it. That is usually the last time you set a cracker down on that table!
Natural consequences just happen, and they are powerful teachers! This is why you look around your seat before leaving a restaurant or the library. Once you have left and lost something, you remember to check. However, we cannot, as responsible adults allow ALL natural consequences to occur! For example, you cannot let a child run out in front of a car to learn what a risky and dangerous idea that is! You cannot let a child eat a poisonous plant to discover that it will make you sick. So, when we cannot let a child learn from natural consequences, we can turn to “logical” consequences. (However, Dreikurs points out that if you are in a power struggle, only natural consequences work. Logical ones seem punitive to the child.)
Logical consequences are those which we impose in order for the child to learn the unpleasant consequences of their behavior. They cannot be just any consequence, though. For learning to occur, the consequence must be logically related to the misbehavior.
For example, if a child keeps crashing the tricycle into the wall, he or she will lose the privilege of riding it for the rest of the day. The consequence is directly related to the misbehavior. Moreover, the consequence must be logical to the child. For learning to occur the child must be able to understand how their behavior and the consequence are related and “make sense” even if they are not happy about it. They must be able to understand that crashing the bike can injure the bike as well as the child.
A school-aged child who plays video games instead of doing homework can easily understand “why” the video game privilege gets taken away until all homework is done. Taking away use of his/her bike would NOT make sense, however. Bike riding was not interfering in getting homework done. This would feel punitive and arbitrary to the child.
We will return to look closer at Logical Consequences in a little more detail, but first let’s take a look at problem solving to see what can happen to prevent discord and power struggles between adults and children, and to support the learning of responsibility.
Problem solving:
As part of an approach to using Positive Discipline, Jane Nelsen suggests having regular family meetings for solving problems. This can happen in a classroom or other group also, with regular, if not daily, classroom meetings. Says Nelsen (2012),
“When children are involved in the problem-solving process they have ownership and are more likely to follow solutions they have helped create. When a solution doesn’t work, try again. If children are too young to participate in [a] family [or classroom] meeting (usually under the age of four), they are too young for ‘responsibility’ in any case. Keep teaching without expecting immediate cooperation.”
In teaching about problem solving, I once had a student who was a soccer coach for a middle school team. He and another fellow were coaches for this team. They struggled to get the team members to cooperate, practice, work together, etc. to no avail, and didn’t know what to do about it. Then in this class, we started looking at Dreikurs’ work and Positive Discipline. I shared an outline of a way to do problem solving in groups or with an individual child. This student/coach decided to try this approach and, after doing so, reported back to the class that it had turned the team around! The team members were more involved in decision making and were really engaged in the progress of the whole team. His “testimony” to the rest of the class was very powerful.
The following is the problem solving method that I shared and which he and his fellow coach utilized with their team. This approach can be used with a child (or in that case, with anyone!) one-on-one or in a small group, prior to employing natural or logical consequences. We always want to start by talking about problems and seeing if we can come up with a mutually agreed upon solution. In this way, everyone can feel “heard” and authentically included.
The following eight steps to problem solving are not a rigid formula, but are guidelines for constructive problem solving that involve all parties in formulating the solution. It teaches participation in the process, an essential component to democracy.
1. Talk to the child (person) directly. As adults, we often talk to everyone else than the person with whom we have the problem! This first step is often neglected, or avoided.
2. State the problem or concern and tell why. If you cannot clearly state what the problem is and why it is a problem, then you need to back up and re-think why you are reacting or feeling as you do. It may not be the child’s problem at all.
3. Ask the child for their point of view on the concern. Very often, adults neglect getting the child’s “side” of the issue; instead, they just “tell” the child what is wrong. This latter approach is authoritarian and breaks off communication. In asking the child for their view on the problem, you might find out something you never considered.
Take, for example, a child who never gets their math homework done and thus has to stay in the classroom during recess to complete it. This child may be doing this on purpose due to being victimized by a bully on the playground! The child may have been afraid to tell you about this.
4. Find agreement on what the problem is & whose problem it is. Once everyone has shared their point of view on the stated problem, take some time to reconsider the nature of the problem itself as well as the source of the problem. Work to agree on if there really is a problem, and if so, what it is and whose problem it is.
Children and adults can sometimes have differences of opinion on what “looks good” or “works” in clothing selection, time management, room arrangement, storage solutions, etc. Look at the actual impact of each approach before making any decisions.
5. Brainstorm some possible solutions that would work and which are acceptable to the parent(s). Parents are still in charge and must approve of the solution decided on. Once again, all solutions from all individuals should be seriously considered. If parents reject a solution, they must explain why, otherwise it seems arbitrary.
6. Let the child pick which one to try, if possible. If there is more than one possible solution, let the child decide which one to start with. This gives the child some control.
7. Implement it-stick to it (give it time- children don’t learn to talk in a couple of weeks – remember this!). While the child is trying out the solution, you also need to ask about and get an agreement on “reminding.” This should be up to the child, whether or not to be reminded.
8. Review progress after you’ve tried it out. Once you have given the chosen solution ample time (several weeks), get together and have all persons share how they think it has gone, and evaluate the solution. If it is working, keep going and come back again in several weeks to check again.
If it is not working, go back to step 5 and try one of the other solutions, or brainstorm more ideas. If the child fails to employ the solution chosen, revisit it to find out why.
If you try this type of problem solving and give it time, but the child still does not follow the solution agreed upon, then, Dreikurs suggests that we move into using Logical Consequences.
Logical Consequences (focus is on learning)
Let’s start with an example, that of family laundry!
For the sake of description, let’s say it is my family and I have been having a problem with laundry. The rest of the family members are lax in putting their dirty clothes in the basket designed for that. When I go to do the laundry, I have to search the house for all the clothes that need to be washed.
I’ve asked, reminded, and put up notes. Nothing has worked, so I’ve decided to use Logical Consequences. I call a family meeting and let everyone know that I’m having this problem, and it is taking me almost an hour to “find” all the dirty clothes, towels, etc. that need to be washed. I propose a solution which they all agree to. On Saturday mornings, I’ll be doing laundry sometime around 9:00 a.m. For a couple of weeks, I’ll make a bunch of reminders about the new system. The key part is that from here on out, I will wash all the laundry that gets in the basket by laundry time. If it is not in the basket, it won’t be washed.
The first time someone forgets to put their dirty clothes in the basket, they will have to face the week with few clean clothes – or at least, fewer choices. Once they run out of clean clothes to wear, they will begin to remember to put them in the basket! The solution is logically related to the problem, and the child (or other family members) will experience the reality of the social order – in this case, about laundry.
In another example of logical consequences, my dentist one year sent a reminder card of my upcoming appointment. It had a cartoon on it that showed a little boy at the bathroom sink with a piece of dental floss in his hands. His mother is at the door and she says, “Only floss the teeth you want to keep.” Logical consequences supreme! When I shared this example in a class, a student with a 4 year old son told it to him.
She had been struggling to get him to brush and floss his teeth. So when she told him to only brush and floss the teeth he wanted to keep, he was stunned! He really thought about it and then told his mother that he had decided to take care of all of his teeth. He went on to point to each tooth and named the favorite food that each one of them was responsible for chewing!!! So, even young children can understand the “logical” consequences of behavior if we find a good way to explain it to them.
Social Methods:
Dreikurs had some social methods which support logical consequences, including that logical consequences imply no element of moral judgment. We are not moralizing, we are imposing a consequence that will teach the responsible behavior through experience. Because the focus is on learning, logical consequences are concerned with the present and future, and not with the past. Positive discipline does not go back over a list of past “wrongs” as this is self-defeating. We cannot change the past, but we can change current and future behavior. This gives us hope. We can encourage change. The child is not “bad” but behavior has consequences.
Because the focus is on learning, the voice can be friendly when consequences are evoked, as logical consequences are based on good will. The intent is for the child to learn from mistakes and mistaken choices. The adult, however, can show regret about the child’s situation. “I’m sorry that you have no clean clothes to wear to school today.”
Dreikurs suggests some other social methods to support positive discipline and logical consequences. The first is the “no nagging” rule! Learn not to talk at times, so you can allow consequence to happen. If you want children to learn from experience, you must let them have the full experience. If you decide on a solution to a problem, remember to ask about “reminders” to clarify if the child does or does not want to be reminded of the thing he or she is trying to do.
Logical consequences are not a threat of punishment. They are a method for teaching responsibility. So, there is no arguing, no anger, no nagging. Parents impose the consequence and then let it happen. The dirty laundry stays dirty for the next week!
Dreikurs also reminds parents to avoid fostering competition between siblings, as it can destroy their relationship. Parents should treat each child as an individual and avoid comparisons of them and their behavior.
And finally, we are also reminded not to overprotect a child or do for a child what they can do for themselves. This deprives the child of experiencing their own strength. It is discouraging. Let the child know that you trust their ability. But, also, teach needed skills – in all areas, cognitive, emotional, social, and physical – to support the child’s abilities and learning.
In closing:
Jane Nelsen, in discussing Positive Discipline, based on the work of Dreikurs, poses the following question:
“Where did we ever get the crazy idea that in order to make children do better, first we have to make them feel worse? Children do better when they feel better.” (Positive Discipline, 2012,1)
Sources:
Dreikurs, R. & Grey, L. (1970). A Parent’s Guide to Child Discipline. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc.
Dreikurs, R. & Stolz, V. (1964). Children: The Challenge. New York: Meridith Press.
Hamdorf, K.G. (n.d.). Discipline: Natural and Logical Consequences. Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State University. Retrieved 10/25/2001.
Nelsen, J. (2012). Teaching Responsibility: When does it happen? (Posted 3/30/2011) www.positivediscipline.com Retrieved 7/12/2012.
The Positive Discipline Association. (2012). What is Positive Discipline? www.positivediscipline.com. Retrieved 7/12/2012.
2012
