Essential Questions

There are a host of self-confessed "bad parents" who confess their parenting "sins." In fact, Kristina Sauerwein boldly claims that it is chic to be a bad mom. But are "bad parents" the only ones confessing?

What is the point of confession?
For "bad parents" the point of confession is transparency. Rather than pretending to have it together, they're ready to say that they don't. This the the integrity in their position that creates its allure. For parents who are trapped in a game of pretense and hypocrisy, the prospect of being honest and transparent is exciting.

But can transparency be the only aim of confession? If my daughter comes to me and tells me that she wrote on the wall with a Sharpie, I commend her for her honesty, and we talk together about the consequences of her action, and the future consequences of repeating this action. I welcome and honor the transparency of her confession, but I fully expect that the outcome of confession is going to be change. In confessing, she is telling me something that she has done wrong. There is no celebration of what she has done. There is still Sharpie on the wall. We look to the hard work of cleaning up the mess; we request and offer forgiveness; and we talk creatively about how to prevent it happening again. Confession that doesn't involve contrition and repentance is not confession in the sense that any wise parent would want to hear from a child. Why should we welcome it from parents?

So, what do good parents confess?
Good parents can, should be, and - by definition - are engaged in confession. The critical difference is that their confession involves contrition and repentance. If I get angry at my daughter because she disobeys a simple instruction that I have clearly given her and I speak to her in an unkind way, the only kind of confession that is appropriate is one that says:

1. I was wrong.
2. Will you forgive me?
3. I want to change.
4. I'm going to think about what I can do differently next time so that I don't fall into a rut of unkindness.

This is the kind of humility and confession that is an essential characteristic of good parents. Why essential? Because every parent fails. This is without exception. So there are three ways to handle these inevitable failures:

1. Hypocrisy says "I didn't do it," or "It wasn't a big deal."
2. Transparency says "I did it. I'm human. So what?"
3. Humility says "I did it. I was wrong. I'm sorry. I want to change. Will you forgive me?"

Only one of these alternatives is honorable - and it isn't the one that tries to save face. Good parenting is not the absence of failure; it is the ubiquitous presence of humility.

Our children learn from our example. Will they become hypocrites, transparent, or humble?

There are two confusing dynamics of the current buzz about bad parenting.

1. Lack of shame First, as parents fall over one another to tell the things that they've done, there doesn't seem to be remorse or shame. Quite to the contrary, there seems to be a sort of pride in being candid about their feelings, words and deeds.
2. Redefining good Second, and perhaps more subtle, is that the whole discussion is aimed at redefining what good parenting is. For there is no way to define 'bad', except with respect to 'good.' And you cannot celebrate something except inasmuch as you regard it as good.

What are "bad parents" confessing?
It seems that part of the "bad parent" trend is simply a reaction against expectations, or perceived expectations, of what it means to be a good parent. One class of "sins" commonly confessed by "bad parents" are formula feeding (and disliking breastfeeding), feeding kids junk food, and letting their kids watch lots of TV. A second class of "sins" that Kristina Sauerwein names in Fortunately its chic to be a bad mom includes telling vulgar tales about cartoon characters, yelling profanity, being driven crazy by your kids, and delighting in the public disgrace of "holier-than-thou" parents.

Why aren't "bad parents" ashamed?
The dynamic of the whole movement is that what "bad parents" are confessing they don't perceive as really bad; they contend it is just normal. What is abnormal, they say, is that parents will open up and admit it. Considering the two classes of "sins" above, they can be broadly divided into health/development and virtue/taboo. In the health and development category, breaking the norms is simply saying that being uptight about TV, food and nutrition isn't good. In fact, they'd say, it is better to be honest about it than to "keep up appearances." With respect to virtue and taboos, the thrust is the same: being a good parent doesn't mean restraining your tongue, cultivating perseverance, and having pity on the parent whose child has a public melt-down. "Bad parents" aren't ashamed to admit these things because they're working with a different definition of good.

What is good parenting?
Most "discussions" of good parenting and bad parenting turn into online shouting matches, full of name-calling and contempt. Why? The parties involved start with different sets of assumptions about what good parenting is, but spend all of their time arguing about (or ridiculing) conclusions. Usually, both sides walk away amazed at how hard-headed the other side is, and neither has learned much from the exchange.

In order to offer a definition of good parenting (and implicitly define bad parenting), I need to be forthright about my assumptions. I assume that parents bear the primary responsibility for nurturing character, competence, creativity and collaboration in their children - which is to say, their overall well-being. These interrelated qualities which parents nurture are not equal in priority and import. If character is not the first priority, the rest will be in shambles. In other words, nurturing your child's integrity is far more important than whether he is breastfed.

What is bad parenting?
Bad parenting is failing to fulfill this responsibility. It can happen by misguided priorities - like prizing a child's performance over her virtue, or her appearance over her relationship. There are two particular dangers that the "bad parent" conflict highlights.

1. Pretense: The 'bad parent' camp is reacting legitimately against pretense and hypocrisy of others. You can't be a good parent and a hypocrite.
2. Duplicity: Parents can't teach their kids integrity by lying to them, or respect by delighting in the failures of others.  You can't lie to your kids and expect them not to lie to you.

Pretense and duplicity are not the only alternatives. There are such things as honest, humility and virtue. And these are the topic of another post.

Kristina Sauerwein of the Momformation blog on Baby Center celebrated the recent trend in bad parenting with her own confessions there. She revels in the shift toward parents divulging their feelings and actions that don't measure up to social expectations. She seems truly excited that outlets like Salon are facilitating this shift in public discourse. New media, including anonymous confession sites, offer the opportunity for parents to publicly - yet anonymously - spill their garbage.

Where does the 'bad parent' trend come from?
How is it that it is suddenly 'chic' to be a bad parent? Sauerwein argues that at every turn there are PhDs and MDs telling moms what to do, ready to chide them if they don't follow the latest research in child-rearing. She questions whether there is anyone in society more scrutinized that mothers. Amidst all this pressure and scrutiny, parents (and moms in particular) are rebelling - both by doing things that are often considered taboo, and by publishing and celebrating them.

What feelings underlie the 'bad parent' trend?
Even a peripheral reading of Sauerwein or any of the 'bad parents' reveals a revulsion at pretensious parents. In Fortunately its Chic to be a Bad Mom Sauerwein recounts her delight "at the major meltdown and bad behavior of the oh-so-perfect daughter of my holier-than-thou mom friend." She candidly admits, without regret, lying to her kids.

If I'm not mistaken, there are two deeply intertwined sentiments that flow through the 'bad parent' literature. The first is scorn for pretension, despising parents who set themselves up as holier-than-thou. The other is a longing not to have to hide one's own failures, the needs to keep up appearances. In the 'bad parent' trend, parents see an opportunity to dethrone their holier-than-thou friends and come clean on their own failures.

Is everyone allowed to revel in being "bad"?
A helpful way to understand the trend is to examine what would happen if others in society were permitted the same level of self-disclosure. For example, if your mechanic had a blog called "bad mechanic" where he celebrated his foibles, you might find an entry like this: "This morning I was replacing the brake pads on a minivan. Three of them were easy, but I get the fourth back on, so I just left it empty, without a brake pad. They'll never know!" Or consider an entry on the "bad butcher" blog: "Today when I was chopping steaks to put out on display, I sneezed - the biggest sneeze I've ever sneezed. It hit everything! I didn't want to throw it all out, so I packaged up the steaks and put them on the shelf. Considering all the germs in the world, mine aren't likely to hurt anyone."

Perhaps the most helpful example would be to consider the vein of "bad nanny" blogs. Do you see a confession trend on the horizon where nannies and caregivers publicly celebrate being bad? If you had a nanny who regularly didn't change the diapers of your child because she didn't like to deal with a squirming kid, or who delighted when one of your children hit the other because it showed that the one wasn't so perfect after all, how would you feel? Or what if she decided that parking the kids in front of the television for four hours a day was simply essential for her sanity? What if your nanny kept a public blog where she celebrated her freedom to be a "bad nanny." How long would you keep her in your employ?

I can hear some in the 'bad parent' camp objecting that the mechanic and butcher analogies are bad, because the things that parents are confessing don't really make them bad parents. In order to evaluate that claim, there must be a shared understanding of what constitutes good parenting - which deserves a separate article.

There is one question that everyone engaged in social action ought to consider: What is it that communities of poverty possess? In discussions of education and poverty, it is a common and understandable blunder to focus on liabilities rather than assets. However, an asset-based approach to problem-solving often proves far more effective.

Local Assets
There is one thing that outsiders can never bring to a community, and that is social capital. Social capital is built over time within a community in the context of relationships. Take for example my friends' landlord in East Flatbush, Brooklyn. Martha is an African American homeowner, probably in her late fifties, who moved from the South to Brooklyn years ago. She built relationships in the neighborhood and carries herself in a way that commands respect. Martha has the ability to resolve disputes and quiet the neighborhood that no one else has - including the police. Thugs and drug dealers listen to her; children who wouldn't think about obeying their parents would obey her. It is not the force of her voice or threats, but the force of her character. She has social capital on that block that couldn't possibly come from the outside. It can only come from within, and must be built over time.

Buy-in
In order for meaningful change to occur, you need the right investors - the people who have social capital. They may not have money, or property, but their name and experience is more valuable than either property or money. Sometimes, as in Martha's case, they are already using their social capital in ways that benefit the neighborhood. In other cases, they may be contributing to the cycles of poverty. In either case, they have influence in the community that can be invested wisely.

Dignity and Respect
One of the great realities of meaningful social change is that it can't be bullied. The way to get the buy-in of those who hold social capital in communities of poverty is to treat them with dignity and respect. Although no one on the outside may think so, they are important people - and they need to be treated as such. In some cases, individuals are completely unaware of the influence that they have for good or for ill. In many others, they are aware but unclear on how to wield that influence in ways that are good for the community. Acknowledging their capital, and respectfully inviting them to invest their social capital in the good of the community is the only way to long-term community change.

So why don't we do it?
I would suggest that the reason that the leverage of local social capital happens so infrequently is due to wrong valuations. We over-value money, organizations and plans, and under-value the people who have the greatest investment potential . . . precisely because they don't have money, organizations or plans.

Social Capital and the Educational Crisis
So who holds social capital in the educational crisis? Parents. They are the investors who have more influence over their children's character development, skill acquisition and educational achievement than anyone else. If they invest, children learn; if they divest, other influences will fill the void. Whether they recognize it or not, parents have critical social capital in their family and community. Will we treat them with dignity and respect, and invite them to invest wisely?

How we see reality defines who we are - how we understand and make our way in the world. The lenses through which we see are formed in early childhood as we become part of the story of a family and community. Thus parents (or those who act in their stead) play the critical role in shaping a child's lens by the stories they tell and indwell. Since seeing and being are intertwined, parents profoundly influence a child's character, competence, creativity, and ability to collaborate.

Parents play THE central role in education
If you follow the reasoning of most of the education stories in the news, you might conclude that the most important factors in a child's education are class size, teacher pay or per-pupil spending. All of those factors are important, but none of them is at the top of the list. The single best predictor of a child's educational achievement is parent involvement. Why does parent involvement matter so much?

1. Parents set expectations. People in general, and children in particular, live up or down to the expectations set for them. If a parent has health, age-appropriate expectations for a child's learning, then the child will naturally internalize and adopt those expectations. What parents set as the norm is what a child experiences as normal.
2. Parents nurture curiosity. Children learn to ask questions by engaging in meaningful, honest inquiry during the early years of their lives. If they ask questions and are shut down, they'll learn not to ask questions. If, by contrast, their questions are nurtured, directed, and encouraged, the spark of curiosity will grow into a flame of learning.
3. Parents cultivate discipline. All learning requires discipline. Even when a child is learning in a game, it involves the discipline of observing the rules of the game or the conventions of language. In many cases learning is challenging, and the discipline required to persevere in a task that is just beyond one's current ability is essential to continued learning.

Where the baseline of curiosity, discipline and love for learning exist, a child can flourish. If any of those elements are weak or missing, a child will need help in setting new expectations, cultivating curiosity and developing discipline. Since parents have the responsibility and privilege of influencing those three critical areas during the early years of life, they have the ability to set a child's learning trajectory.

The Learning Trajectory
Geoffrey Canada, founder of the Harlem Children's Zone speaks of children in cyclical poverty needing to reach "escape velocity." They need both trajectory and speed to escape the cycles of poverty - cycles that are marked by lack of curiosity and discipline, and maintained by low expectations. Canada has also recognized that the most effective way to do this is not by merely attempting to change the trajectory after kids enter school. Far better to start with the launch pad - the home - to alter the initial trajectory and velocity. Not surprisingly, Canada is succeeding. Harvard economist Roland Fryer puts it this way: "“The results changed my life as a researcher because I am no longer interested in marginal changes . . . [This is] the equivalent of curing cancer for these kids."

It begins at birth
This is not just about education. It is about the way children learn to understand, experience, explore - and change - the world around them. No one has greater influence over this lens formation than parents - no one. Until that simple reality is embraced, increased funding, smaller classes and higher teacher pay will accomplish only the 'marginal changes' that Roland Fryer previously studied. When parents are treated as the primary and most important stakeholders in education, then - and only then - can Canada's "cure for cancer" be applied to sick schools everywhere.