This post will be the first of a three-part series on developing character in children. The first two parts will deal with the two greatest hindrances to developing true character in children - the overemphasis of giving children choices and the overemphasizing of self-esteem instead of self-awareness.
The Liberal "Trump" Card
One of the biggest hindrances to instilling character traits such as diligence, patience, kindness, obedience, and respect is that society does not value these traits much anymore. This is especially true of obedience and respect, which is nearly considered evil in our society. Many prominent psychologists and sociologists place obedience and respect at the very bottom of the list of traits that children should be taught. What do they put at the top? The traits at the top of their list is self-esteem and having choices. I will deal with self-esteem in my next post, but the real culprit that causes so much of our grief as a society is the overemphasis on giving children choices. I call it the liberal "trump" card. Like in the card game "Rook," choices trumps everything including all common sense. It aggravates me to no end that early childhood professionals accept this without question not realizing that this prioritization of traits undermines a lot of the good traits we want to see in our children. The best way to undermine diligence is to give the children the choice to quit. How in the world can children develop patience if they always get their way? Of course, it should make sense now why obedience and respect are so demonized. If children have complete choice, adults have no right to push anything off on the children for any reason. Therefore, the first order of business to instill character into children is to put giving children choices in its proper place in the list of priorities, which is much closer to the bottom. Notice that I did not say it was not important at all. I just said it is not all important.
The Need for Wisdom
Where does choice fit in the grand scheme of it all? Many of the early childhood theorists believe that the only way to teach children to make good choices is to give them complete choice. They believe that the act of making choices will eventually produce adults who can be decisive and make good choices in their lives. There's a little flaw in that theory, and it is called the sin nature. Because these theorists deny the sin nature, they do not take into account that selfishness and greed will more often come into play in a child's decisions than wisdom. Wisdom has to be taught. Being selfish and greedy does not have to be taught. The simple act of making decisions without wisdom will never produce adults who make good decisions. They might be decisive, but we all know people who are decisive and very unwise. Therefore, the teaching of wisdom must come first coupled with opportunities for the children to make some decisions.
Two Positive Choices
At this point I want to deal with the practice of giving "two positive choices." When in life do we as anyone above the age of 5 get to choose between two positives? Most of the time we have to choose between the lesser of two negatives. Choosing between two positives is not really developing the ability to make good choices. All it develops is being decisive. When a child has to decide between doing what they are supposed to do and what they want to do because they have weighed the consequences, that develops good decision making skills. That is how decisions for the rest of their life will have to be made. Why in the world would we present them with such a unrealistic scenario as two positive choices? The answer to that question lies in the fact that most early childhood theory is based on relativism and adults should not enforce a definite "right and wrong" on children. They will say that when a positive and a negative choice are given to a child that is not really a choice. Oh really? That child can choose the negative and does so quite often because of stubbornness. Then that child learns that negative choices beget negative consequences. How are children supposed to learn that lesson when all they ever get are two positive choices? They won't.
Choice in the Real World
In an early childhood world where relativism is stripped away and the provider takes the sin nature into account, what does choice look like? In a situation where a child is misbehaving it is perfectly acceptable to point out to that child the positive way of handling that situation and the negative consequences if they do not. Then that child has to decide if they will be obedient or suffer the consequences. In situations where children must choose between neutral options, a wise way of teaching decisiveness is to make them abide by their choices. In our facility we let the children choose centers at each center time, but they have to stay there. Roaming is not allowed. The children at our facility put a little more thought into where they go and who goes with them because for 15-20 minutes that is where they will be. It doesn't take children long at all to figure this out once they start at our facility. Making good choices can actually be taught much more effectively if the child is not given complete choice. However, this can only be accomplished when relativism is thrown out the window. It is our God-given responsibility to teach children the difference between right and wrong.
I hope you have enjoyed this post. Goodbye and God bless!! Check out Natalie's children's books at: https://www.amazon.com/author/nataliewade7457
No comments:
Post a Comment