The effects of our beliefs on kids’ capabilities

One of the ways we interfere with children’s autonomy and act upon them, rather than cultivating relationships of mutual respect and shared power is through our beliefs of children’s limited capabilities and our efforts to keep them within those limits. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We don’t allow kids to do things we think they are not capable of and therefore they don’t have an opportunity to prove otherwise or have limited opportunity to gain the skills needed for tasks that are at first challenging. Our beliefs can serve to limit kids rather than support them in gaining the knowledge, skills and ability to gain competency and self-determination in their lives. We use our belief in children’s limited capability as justification for limiting their behavior rather than seeing it as an invitation to help them expand their capabilities. This happens not just with young children, but is equally true with teenagers. Psychologist Louise Dietzel writes in her book Parenting with Respect and Peacefulness: “Trust is initially based on beliefs, not accomplishments and performance. Belief precedes performance and achievement; then performance and accomplishments confirm and reinforce the initial belief. In other words, before you do something, you think or believe that you can”. By not trusting kids, we teach them not to trust themselves. When we believe that we CAN trust our kids and that they ARE capable, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as well.

As Thomas Gordon points out, if we have limited belief in children’s ability we are constantly reinforcing our lack of trust in them. Limiting beliefs and resulting action toward children, as with other such attitudes of dominant groups to subordinates, causes internalized feelings of incapability and inadequacy so that “subordinates themselves can come to find it difficult to believe in their own abilities” (Jean Baker Miller Toward a New Psychology of Women). “Tell a child often enough that he is bad and he will most certainly become bad. Children often become what their parents tell them they are” ( Thomas Gordon,). In short, children come to internalize the beliefs we hold about them, which often means children lose faith in themselves and their capabilities. Our assumption of incompetence limits opportunity to learn or demonstrate competence. We also use justifications for limiting kids which, if used with adults, would not be seen as justification for limiting adult behavior. These beliefs relate both to physical ability and mental capacity, as well as the ability of kids to be responsible and to manage their own lives.

How do kids learn if they can’t take risks or do things that they don’t yet know how to do?

Concerning physical capability, we often use the guise of “safety” to keep kids’ behavior within what we have decided are acceptable limits. “It’s not safe”: code word for “I don’t want/trust you to do that”. Is there truly a legitimate safety concern or is it just cultural conditioning? Is there a way to find out what the true limits are rather than assuming you know what will happen? Danger and safety are in many ways subjective and what seems to be a perfectly acceptable risk to one may seem like unreasonable danger to another. What kids safely do routinely in one culture is seen as a paramount risk to their safety in another.  To me the words “It’s not safe” are often used as a subtle form of manipulation and control and not because there is a real safety danger-(What’s so much more dangerous about kids climbing up the slide than sliding down?) It undermines kids’ ability to trust themselves. Matt Hern writes in his book Field Day,

We have entered an era in which children’s ability to explore the world on their own terms has become increasingly constricted, largely under a rubrics of “safety”. Both in and out of schools, it has become acceptable to obsessively monitor and supervise children for their own good, and the idea of “safety first” has become a cliché .

We attempt to keep kids so “safe” that we limit them from exploration and learning. New skills and new tasks that have some level of risk involved are seen as too dangerous and with “safety” limitations kids cannot master more risky tasks. Predetermining what is safe and what is not for children, we decide their limits and do not give them the chance to test or expand the limits of their current capabilities (which may be entirely different from what we think they are). We also limit them from developing abilities in areas where they may at first have limited skills. “By assuming they do lack the capability[…] we restrict their behavior and give them little opportunity to demonstrate or further develop such a capability” ( Ann Palmeri). In this way we are using children’s lack of knowledge and skill as justification for maintaining inequality rather than allowing children opportunities that would move toward equality and bring them into parity. (see Post: A New Paradigm for Childhood)

In addition, we take injury or accident as justification that a child is incompetent and should be limited from whatever behavior in which they happened not to meet with success. Fumbling is part of learning. Yes, kids fall down when they ride their bikes, and even get nasty scrapes and bruises, but eventually they get it and learn how to not fall down. Should we keep a kid from learning to ride a bike because of the risk involved?

Does accident or injury justify exclusion from an activity?

With so many other things where there is potential for injury, we do keep kids from participating because they didn’t get it the first time. This should not be taken as proven incompetence but as part of a learning curve. Adults hurt themselves all the time doing a number of things, but we don’t use that as justification for them to be barred from a particular activity. Just because someone hits his finger with a hammer is not proof that he should not use one. Plenty of adults cut themselves while using sharp knives, yet we do not consider this a sign of their incompetence as we do with children. Kids, with the proper guidance, can use such tools. Kids may hurt themselves from time to time but this is no reason to assume that they should be barred from an activity all together. We don’t assume adults incompetent in such a situation and we should not make that assumption of kids, but rather help them gain the skills needed for success. As teachers at Sudbury Valley School learned…

As it turns out, the daily dangers are challenges to the children, to be met with patience, determination, concentration and most of all, care. People are naturally protective of their welfare, not self-destructive. The real danger lies in placing a web of restrictions around people. The restrictions become challenges in themselves and breaking them becomes such a high priority that even personal safety can be ignored[…] ( Matt Hern, Field Day)

Ana (1 ½) has, for the most part, not had a web of restrictions placed around her and possesses a striking confidence and certainty in her self. She is not timid or afraid and indeed meets the daily challenges of life with patience, care and confidence.

Ana and I are walking down the path in the woods. She is naked and barefoot (as usual). We are walking together and I wait for her as she makes her way slowly. I offer my hand from time to time when it seems needed. She does not ask to be picked up and even though there are sticks in the path and some prickers, I let her make her own way. She is confident in her ability, maybe because no one ever taught her not to be. She is able to trust her self and her own ability and to find her own limits.

How much do we teach children to be incompetent and not to trust their own abilities? How much do we re-enforce through our actions kids’ lack of trust and confidence in themselves? Can we see limitation or lack of ability as an opportunity to support discovery and learning new skills and abilities? Can we question our assumptions about kids, what we believe they can or cannot do, long enough to allow them the freedom to demonstrate what they are truly capable of? We might just be surprised!