Summary

The author critiques a parenting book for providing inaccurate, potentially harmful advice, emphasizing that children should not be treated as mini adults and that parenting strategies should be based on scientific evidence and developmentally appropriate expectations.

Abstract

The article on the undefined website expresses the author's dissatisfaction with a parenting book that lacks academic references and offers advice contradicting established research. The author, Jillian Enright, argues that children are fundamentally different from adults and should not be subjected to the same systems of rewards and punishments used in the workplace. Instead, parenting should focus on fostering a child's sense of responsibility and autonomy through fair, realistic, and developmentally appropriate expectations. The author stresses the importance of teaching children skills without manipulation or coercion, advocating for a supportive approach that aligns with the research and the ethical obligations of professionals working with families.

Opinions

The parenting book in question is criticized for being full of unsubstantiated opinions and for lacking peer-reviewed or academic references, which is particularly concerning given the author's professional role.
The author believes that it is unethical to compare an adult's choice to work for compensation with a child's completion of tasks under threat of punishment or promise of reward, due to the inherent power dynamics and differences in brain development.
There is a strong opinion against using punishment and rewards as primary behavior management tools, as they are seen as manipulative and not conducive to teaching children valuable life skills such as flexibility, compromise, and compassion.
The article suggests that expecting children to share adult priorities is unrealistic and that children should be allowed to focus on age-appropriate concerns without being penalized for not adhering to adult expectations.
The author agrees that children should learn responsibility but insists that this should be done through teaching and role-modeling, not by setting them up to fail without adequate support and tools.
The author points out the irony in adults using behavior management techniques that benefit themselves rather than genuinely supporting the child's development.
The article emphasizes that so-called "natural consequences" imposed by teachers are not truly natural, as they involve human intervention, and that such consequences can be detrimental to a child's self-esteem if not accompanied by proper support.
The author advocates for teaching children how to handle problems independently, within the context of having been taught the necessary skills and with the assurance of parental support.

Children Are Not Mini Adults

Stop comparing apples to oranges

I purchased a book on impulse (surprise, an ADHDer acting impulsively!) based solely on the title. I won’t give the book any free publicity because it was awful and the title was completely misleading, and I know it’s just one among a polluted sea of books with similarly bad advice.

I will, however, explain in specifics what most irked me about the book, aside from the fact that it had zero peer-reviewed or academic references. It was a poorly written booklet full of the author’s wholly unsubstantiated opinions, with some statements being the complete opposite of what research has shown.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and free to share them (as I am doing here). The problem is, according to their bio, the author works with families professionally, and gives this terrible advice as a figure of authority in parenting.

As professionals, we have a moral and ethical obligation to give advice based on academic knowledge, professional experience, and scientific evidence. Granted, different people will come to different conclusions based on varying experiences and interpretations of the research, but it is our duty to guide parents and families with children’s best interests at the forefront.

The advice in this regrettable book does the opposite. Not only is it inaccurate and out of date (despite being published in 2020), some of it could very well do more harm than good.

Children are not mini adults

Some try to justify the use of punishment and rewards to gain compliance from children by claiming we do the same to adults. “We wouldn’t go to work if our employer stopped paying us” they say.

Well, sure. We chose to go to work. We applied for the job, attended the interview, curated professional references, then showed up on the first day for training. We signed a contract agreeing on the terms of employment, responsibilities, and compensation for the job.

Children don’t sign up for our agendas and they haven’t willingly entered into an agreement. We lovingly brought them into our lives.

We shouldn’t expect our children to share our priorities. They don’t care if the dishes get done, the garbage gets taken out, or their bed is made. Nor should they, they’re kids.

They’re not supposed to care about adult things. Kids are supposed to care about whether they get ice cream for dessert, playing with their friends, and which story to read at bedtime tonight.

Those are kid priorities.

We can, and certainly should, set developmentally appropriate expectations and boundaries for our children.

However, it is disingenuous to compare an adult who chooses to go to work and be paid for doing their job with a child who grudgingly completes a task under threat of punishment or lure of reward.

Not to mention the fact that adults have a fully developed prefrontal cortex and decades of life experience. Our brains are not fully matured until between 25–30 years of age

I’m not saying our children should never do things they don’t want to do, but working through those situations without manipulation and coercion requires a strong relationship and trust between the adult and child.

Rather than taking advantage of our position to force children to do what we want, and causing children to become reliant on rewards in order to complete tasks, we can teach kids the skills needed to develop their own sense of responsibility and autonomy.

“Rewards and punishments flourish in asymmetrical relationships, where one person has most of the power… rewards and punishments exacerbate that imbalance.” — Alfie Kohn

It’s wrong to manipulate and control children using rewards and punishments, then claim it’s ethical because adults choose to work for a living.

Expectations

One of the questions posed in the book is: how will children learn responsibility without expectations? The author asks this in defense of letting children fail and experience the consequences of their actions, rather than jumping in to rescue them.

I agree, but with a caveat. It’s only fair for a child to be held accountable if the expectations are fair, realistic, and developmentally appropriate. In most cases, if a child has been taught the skills needed and is capable of meeting the expectation, they will. As Dr. Ross Greene says, “Kids do well if they can.”

Quote by Dr. Ross Greene — (photo by author)

The author of this unfortunate book also claims doing so allows our children to experience natural consequences. The example used in support of this is parents making excuses to their child’s teacher if they didn’t complete an assignment. The advice is to let them go to school and take the fall for their own mistake and this will teach them.

Again, that depends. Was the child given all of the information and support needed to complete the assignment? Did they have time and guidance to do so? Do they have the skills to do what is being asked of them? What are the consequences they may face at school if they don’t complete the assignment?

The author calls these “natural and logical” consequences, but teacher-imposed consequences are not natural. The definition of natural is “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.”

Not caused by humankind. Teachers and parents are still humankind last I checked. A natural consequence is one that occurs without any adult intervention.

The irony of it all is the book claims to be about promoting positive self-esteem in children. If our children are constantly set up to fail without being given the tools and support to do better, what will that do to their self-esteem?

Irony

The further irony in all of this is most of the time when we threaten punishment or lure with rewards, it’s for something that benefits the adult more than the child.

We use these types of behaviour management to make our own lives easier, to gain compliance, and to coerce children into doing things our way. That doesn’t role model the skills we want to teach.

Instead of modelling manipulation and coercion, we want to teach our children flexibility, compromise, and compassion. We can only expect these qualities from our children if we’ve first.

Responsibility

Yes, I want my son to learn responsibility and not have his parents jumping in every time he has a minor problem.

If we’ve taught and role-modelled for him the skills necessary, and the problem is one that is developmentally-appropriate for him to manage, we can let him work through it knowing he has our love and support and he can come to us for help if needed.

That is significantly different from throwing him into the lake and hoping he swims. It’s our job to teach our children how to swim first and then supervise them while they do to ensure they remain safe.

Children Are Not Mini Adults

Stop comparing apples to oranges

Children are not mini adults

Expectations

Irony

Responsibility

Related Stories

Behaviour Management Programs are Harmful & Ableist

Charts, points, and other behaviour management programs touted as “positive” are actually harmful, and ableist AF.

Demanding Blind Obedience is Dangerous

Those who subvert authority change the world for the better

The Perils of Punishment Story Series

Because I like alliteration… and science. I really like science.

References