Category: Parenting

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan and his administration released a report titled “A Nation at Risk”. This report highlighted some general issues with the infrastructure of America throughout, but it ended with an unexpected and quite damning statement. It warns, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves” (Berenstein 46). In its metaphorical critique of American academic performance, this announcement served as a call for change. But a change in what? While many are quick to place blame on the American school system alone, they fail to acknowledge the common people’s failure. The report is right: we the people have failed, not the government. But why have we failed? The parents of our nation are not doing their job and the people are not doing anything about it. America is in need of parenting changes because of the popular usage of questionable parenting strategies, the non fulfillment of the linkage between parenting quality and academic performance, and the large scale relationship between parenting and the economic performance of our nation.

To get to the bottom of America’s productivity threat, it is appropriate to start at the origin of it all: parents and their strategies. A very popular form of parenting in the United States is known as “helicopter parenting”. This parenting style gets its name from parents who practically hover over their children. Children who live with strict parenting like this show anxiety, depression, and demotivation in a study conducted by the Florida State University (“Reports”). Many parents in the United States drain their children’s sense of control and autonomy in an effort to keep them safe. Kids across the nation, however, feel trapped and unable to think for themselves as their self-worth decays. While this may seem overdramatic or opinionated, it is backed up by studies. It is okay to care for and overprotect children as a parent of a young child, but this should not continue into teenage years. Teenagers will only try to rebel more when they feel like they are being controlled. Not only is there a direct relationship between perceived control, competence, and autonomy, but autonomy directly impacts a child’s self-worth and academic achievement (Weist). When a parent grants autonomy and freedom to their children within reason, their children will feel more confident and independent. Not only does this confidence improve grades, but independence will enable a child to have an easier adjustment to the responsibilities of adult life.

There are certain nations whose parenting norms are certainly healthier than America’s standards. Finland is especially relevant to the conversation considering the average levels of helicopter parenting in Finland are much lower than America’s (“Reports”). Yet Finland is the highest-performing country academically in the world. The direct correlation between autonomy and academic performance can be seen through Finland’s rather relaxed parenting style yet high resulting academic performance. Parents in Finland accept their role as insurers of their child’s journey to college and avoid other intrusions of privacy. Even students who attend public and poorly funded schools in Finland, Norway, and Poland have amazing academic performance (Camera). This serves as further evidence that parenting, not the school system, is largely to blame. John Marsh from the Wilson Quarterly critiques American parenting, stating “Children overall don’t value education because their parents don’t teach them the value of it, which is why they fail.” Marsh continues, saying, “The school systems based on local school boards turned this country into a global superpower on the strength of parents who worked with their kids to make sure they acquired a solid education.” Finland has schools that are regulated on a local scale, which gives parents more of a responsibility to remain active in their children’s academic lives (Marsh). Much of Finland and other countries’ reputation of being education powerhouses can perhaps be accredited to the parents’ greater respect to their child’s privacy.

Social background has a large influence on how a child will perform in the world, and parenting quality is a part of this background. It is common knowledge among many education experts that social background has a huge impact on academic performance. There is as much as a 20 percent performance difference between a student with a poor social background compared to a student with a good social background, even when they have the same level of intelligence (“Study”). While there are many factors that play into what is known as someone’s social background, a large portion of this is how much nurturing and care a child retrieves. Care and attention is entirely a parent’s job, so it can be inferred that parents carry a huge role in how a student’s social background is rated. There are students that perform well despite a poor social background by their country’s standards. Resilient students in Korea, Shanghai, and Singapore have a 70 percent resilience rate, while those of the U.S. have a rate of below 3 percent (“Study”). Across the board, social backgrounds of students seem to show less of an impact on academic performance in other countries, likely because the lower-income families have higher academic standards.

Parenting in America is underperforming so badly that schools have gradually had to assume responsibilities that parents once had. School programs like driving education, sex education, music, and vocal skills are things that should be left to parents to teach their children (Berenstein 47). As a matter of fact, these are the jobs that parents were expected to do for many years. It is just recently that these things have been added to the curriculum. John L. Hasten from The Wilson Quarterly says, “How can we hold the schools and teachers responsible for a result that the student (and the student’s parents) had no personal investment in” (Marsh)? John makes a good point, exposing the lack of parental engagement in the lives of students. Parents like to complain about the school system, but they never look at themselves and realize how much they neglect the needs of their own children.

As a result of poor parenting and therefore educational struggles, children today are growing up to have serious problems in the world. Millennials today struggle financially. They often neglect to create an emergency fund and making big purchases like a home. A problem that plagues many young adults is student debt. They also face the problem of saving up for retirement plans. In comparison, they are much worse than Gen Xers, of which 80 percent have already locked down a retirement plan. And when it comes to financial planning, late baby boomers are mediocre with only 51 percent having a 3-year financial plan or longer. Early baby boomers, however, are the most financially stable. 60 percent of them claimed that they could shell out 10,000 dollars for an emergency without worries. A whopping 33 percent of all millennials have student debt and 40 percent of millennials feel financially overwhelmed. Overall, this data shows a gradual worsening of financial situations between generations. Recent generations like Gen Z have parents that are Gen Xers. It is very probable that this negative trend will continue and get worse and worse as time goes on. There is a striking connection between the financially mediocre late baby boomers along with millennials struggling today, as late boomers are mostly parents of millennials. This can further support the idea of parents having an impact on economic performance of kids.

Finally, as people progress through childhood and college and into their first career, they begin contributing to the economy. But this contribution is not what it once was. According to Dale Jorgenson, a Harvard professor, “The larger contribution of labor was driven entirely by the contribution of workers with a college degree,” he continues, saying, “The economy is shifting toward educationally intensive industries, it is important to take this into account when constructing medium-term projections of labor productivity and GDP growth.” Dale also found that labor productivity and aggregate value growth added in mid-2016 are below the average from 1995-2015 (Jorgenson). Industries that require higher education generally contribute more to the economic wellbeing and are more successful. However, these valuable industries are declining because there are fewer and fewer people entering career paths that require higher education. In response to recent testing scores by high schoolers and observing the declining economy, Mr. Michael Davidson, Senior Analyst at OECD says “I think the price of this is huge. We know that underachievement costs the economy a significant amount of money. And tackling that underachievement is not just for the education system but for the economy and society at large” (“Study”). The infrastructure of the economy is starting to crumble because there are fewer and fewer adults who have the experience to enter major industries which require education. Parents are failing to emphasize the importance of education to their children and in turn their children have poor academic performance and struggle to enter valuable industries..

Many will turn to the statistic that, during the first quarter of 2019, the growth rate of the economy overall was 3.2 percent which exceeded expectations. Not only this, but wage gains were amazing. President Donald Trump was very pleased with the way the economy performed that time of year (“Economy”). It is now the fourth quarter of 2019, and the economy is still performing well under Trump’s administration. If one only looks at the big picture but fails to focus on what is going on behind the scenes, the economy will look very healthy. Many people think that the economy is doing well because all they do is look at general numbers.

Large companies like Jeff Bezos’ Amazon that contribute greatly to the wellbeing of the economy were built on tax avoidance. As of 2014, Amazon was only taxed for their business in 20 states. Amazon has exploited a loophole in the law of the United States since its conception. In 2012, over 11 billion dollars in taxes were not paid by online retail sites, so Amazon is not the only one. While Amazon certainly pays more taxes than they used to, they are still avoiding a lot (Tehrani). Their schemes still run rampant in Trump’s America, where the law still allows this behavior to this day. Jeff Bezos and other CEOs get extremely rich on this abuse of the system. Before their divorce, Jeff Bezos and his wife owned 140 billion dollars of the Amazon company. Just from their divorce, His wife MacKenzie became one of the richest women in the world (“Divorce”). Today, rich CEOs like Jeff Bezos with big companies perform well in the economy, but they are a misrepresentation of how things are actually going. They cheat the system in a way that strictly benefits those at the top and makes lower classes suffer. The performance of large companies is actually not as good as what shows in the numbers, because there is a lot of deception and manipulation of the law.

In conclusion, the power and influence that something like a parenting approach can impact something seemingly unrelated like the economy and the wellbeing of the country. A simple strategy can change how a student performs in school and how they perform as an adult. The United States of America as we know it is facing a crisis among many other crises. With controversial subjects such as politics, global warming, gender, and race seeming so dominant right now, many people neglect something that has a huge effect on everyone’s well being. That something is parenting. As a nation, we must pay just as much attention to the wellbeing and development of our kids as we do to other issues. It is urgent that Americans get together and dwell on what they are doing. It is entirely possible that they are subconsciously neglecting the needs of their kids. Let them be reminded that they have one of the most important jobs in the world.

Summary

Kids should develop in a family setting where both mother and father play their individual parts in the childhood of the kid. Lately there has been an abrupt ascent in the wonder of single parent families. Single parent families face difficulties in appropriately bringing up their youngsters. This examination looked to discover the difficulties experienced by single guardians in the learning the learning and improvement of their baby kids. The examination utilized blended techniques. It utilized polls, perception agenda and report investigation as exploration instruments. The example of examination members comprised of 30 teachers, 18 school heads and 20 guardians and 20 youngsters in grade 1 and 2. The information is introduced as tables and selections. The examination discovered that solitary guardians confronted difficulties in paying charges for their kids, providing their youngsters with satisfactory writing material, observing the school participation of their kids and furnishing their kids with passionate help. The activity books of the youngsters were in a terrible state. The scholarly exhibition of the kids was poor. The single guardians confronted difficulties in managing their youngsters’ home tasks and their conduct. The examination suggests that the schools sort out care groups for single guardians so they share data on the most proficient method to improve their circumstance. The examination likewise suggests that the administration enactment and approaches should help low salary single guardians in their child rearing issues. There is requirement for schools to set up direction and advising projects to help youngsters from single guardians and their kids so they can adapt to difficulties they face and can contend with kids from unblemished families.

Introduction

In culture, a family is often seen as a dad, a mother and their children. This is not necessarily today’s case. In this modern age, single parenthood in our society is now acceptable. He is a person who builds a family and cares for one or more children without marriage or without the presence of a husband or wife. Statistics from the United States, in 2002, the Census Bureau had almost 20 million children living in a household with either their mother or their father. Families with single parents are families with children under the age of 18 led by a widowed or divorced parent, not remarried, adoption or a parent who has never married. It can also be the result of an unforeseeable incident, abuse of children, neglect of children or abandonment by natural parents.

The number of single parents has risen in the last twenty years to the point where almost one child out of three spends part of his or her childhood with only one of his or her parents. The vast majority of single parents are women in most countries. Population analysis might say that the pattern may continue, mostly due to the combined effect of an increase in divorce and separation incidence and a decline in remarriage rate. Similarly, outside the marriage the proportion of births, mostly to the mothers who never married is rising, but rather differs between the various countries.

In an intact family where both parents play their intended roles, children should be born. The occurrence of the single parent family around the world has recently increased. One parent is present to bring the children without the support from the other. The parent in whose care the children are in, is threatened by this phenomenon. In caring for the child alone, the parent faces difficulties. The single parent will face difficulties in funding and ways that children receive adequate treatment. This study aims at identifying the difficulties single parents face in learning and development of their children.

Body

Problems faced by Mother

The function of single parent is testing one particularly when the family is going by a woman. Issue of single parent are connected with the up bringing of youngsters, their future and setting down throughout everyday life. Till the time youngsters get hitched as well as land positions they are reliant on the single parent. After that the issues are impressively diminished. The current examination like, to contemplate the issues looked by single parents for example social, passionate and monetary, an example of 50 single parents were chosen by snowball testing procedure. The aftereffects of the examination uncovered that budgetary issue was the fundamental stressor for greater part of the single parents. The enthusiastic existence of the single parent was additionally influenced by their single status. Dominant part of the single parent revealed that they felt desolate, vulnerable, sad, absence of personality and absence of certainty. In social circle dominant part of single parents attempted to abstain from going to get-togethers and had changed their dressing style because of misery they had create helpless food and dietary patterns. Larger part of the single parents thought that it was difficult to keep up discipline among the kids because of nonattendance of male individuals. The moms whined about dejection, horrendous and gloom and thought that it was hard to deal with the obligation of childcare and to build up a daily schedule for her youngsters.

Problems faced by Father

Regardless, our dads majorly affect the manners in which we see ourselves and conceivably the manner in which we parent our kids. Maybe your own dad did not give you his best since he was continually working or he was certainly not a by and large warm man. Regardless of any passionate barricades your dad left on you, you can ensure the equivalent does not rehash in your children’s lives. In the event that a single parent is proactive in his youngsters lives and makes the fundamental changes, it will receive long haul rewards and help build up his kids as sound grown-ups. Father’s words and impact will consistently convey extraordinary load in your youngster’s life. Remain associated with their school and urge them to keep steady over their work. Disclose to them the amount you love and miss them and express impact by urging them to carry on for their mother. Ask the intense life inquiries the same than if you were living with them. I think most would agree that a dad that is child rearing accurately from a huge span can be more viable than a father who lives with his kids, yet appears to be so far off.

Problems faced by Children

Huge numbers of the formative dangers that offspring of single parent face have to do with their advancement in school. Contrasted with kids from two-parent families, they will in general get lower grades, endure more non-attendance, and have more issues identifying with companions and teachers. If your explanation behind single child rearing is separate, your youngsters will likewise experience the ill effects of change issues or may have the sentiment of being embarrassed. In the event that your accomplice quits watching out after your children as the individual used to do previously, your kids may seriously endure disdain. There are additionally risks they actually clutch awful recollections of your divorce. If you notice your kid experiencing difficulty dozing or encountering issues at school, you should direct her or take her for advising. Parent ought to likewise invest energy with the youngster and give kid the space to lament. Your youngsters are probably going to experience the ill effects of confidence issues. They may ache for love, which they won’t get enough in light of your bustling timetable. In this manner, they may lose desires in their connections further down the road. Then they will really have more desire for love and friends not far off yet that won’t make a solid dynamic. They will assume all the fault for their day to day environments. It might be hard for you to prevent them from drawing examinations, yet you can enable your youngsters to assemble self-respect.

Types of Social Support

Social support refers to the extent to which a person belongs to a welfare network in which he or she offers love, assistance and responsibility to and from his or her relatives, friends, employers and medical staff. Increased social assistance can be linked to better overall health outcomes. Although it is possible to support each other in several different ways, research has split particular forms of support in three different types of social support:

• Emotional Support
• Esteem Support
• Informational Support

Emotional Support

Emotional Support requires physical comfort such as touch, listening and empathy. A friend or wife may welcome and hear issues with emotional support while being supportive and likely sharing common experiences. Mate support is the most common way to support emotions.

Esteem Support

Esteem support is expressed in expressions of motivation and confidence. Anyone who offers appreciation may indicate the strengths and show their faith in you. Life coaches and various therapists have this form of service and let their patients know that they trust in them.

Informational Support

Informational support is offered in the form of guidance, data collection, sharing and analysis. Examples of this type of help social media sites, blogs, chat rooms and phone hotlines.

Conclusion

Single parent family face numerous issues which separately, or in mix, may likewise emerge for individuals from the bigger network who are additionally monetarily defenseless: the unmistakable concerns with respect to the development in their numbers, the feasible expanding centralization of low-salary units among solitary parent families, the compound burdens they face, and the presence of youngsters. The lack of ways out of monetary burden underlies the case for public mediation. The overall arrangement suggestion is that, notwithstanding momentary medicinal approaches, it might be cost-valuable in the long haul to strengthen measures to forestall financial weakness, especially those that lighten work market detriments over everybody, and those of ladies specifically. Work market disservice and possible reliance on the State speak to an expense, yet by all account not the only one; the loss of beneficial assets is additionally an expense borne by all general public and is an endowment to its youngsters.

“Helicopter parenting,’ or “cosseting parenting,’ is the term often used in the media to describe a form of hyper-parenting, where parents discourage a child’s independence by being too involved and paying extremely close attention to their life. These managing the types of parental behaviors seem to be done out of a strong parental concern for the well-being and success of the child, however, have more negative effects than positive. Even though all parents want to see their children succeed, it’s the 86 percent of parents who are alarmingly too overprotective that takes it a little too far.

A recent study was conducted to see the parental and behavioral connections of helicopter parenting and set up the measure of helicopter parenting that was noticeable from other types of parental control “The Negative Impact of Helicopter Parenting Essay.’ The participants of this study included four hundred and thirty-eight undergraduate students from four universities in the United States, three hundred and twenty of which were women and one hundred and eighteen were men, and at least one of their parents to accompany them. The results revealed that helicopter parenting carried a separate aspect from both behavioral and psychological control. It also showed that it was positively for behavioral and psychological control. In this study, it also showed that helicopter parenting was positively linked with parental involvement and with other positive factors of the parent child relationship, but negatively of parental autonomy.

The effects of helicopter parenting have become a subject of fascination for scientists and parents alike. While there are no doubt benefits to being one hundred percent focused on your child, more and more research is proving the negative effects of helicopter parenting, and it’s not hard to see why. Helicopter parents hinder their child’s chances of being independent by continuously trying to solve their child’s problems for them, causing their children end up incapable of making the decisions for themselves. The sad part is that helicopter parents may not be aware of how they deprive their child of valuable life lessons, nor how they are hindering their growth?

Helicopter parenting is also depriving the kids of the ability to self-motivate a trait the root of independence. ‘Overall, stepping in and doing for a child what the child developmentally should be doing for him or herself, is negative,’ professor Larry Nelson of Brigham Young University, said in a statement, and stated ‘Regardless of the form of control, it’s harmful at this time period.’ But this event is simply one of the detrimental effects of this form of parenting, with other negative effects of helicopter parenting causing more problems. One such effect is on a child’s brain development, including some following detrimental problems provided.

Helicopter parents can also be described as overly ‘intrusive,’ thrusting unrealistic expectations on their kids. Because of this, a 2016 study claims kid grow up to be overly critical of themselves, and too hard on themselves, putting them at risk for anxiety and depression. ‘When parents become too intrusive in their children’s lives, it may signal to the children that what they do is never good enough,’ Ryan Hong, a professor at the National University of Singapore, tells Health.com. ‘As a result, the child may become afraid of making the slightest mistake and will blame himself or herself for not being ‘perfect,” he explains.

A study published in the Journal Emerging Adulthood found that kids of helicopter parents were less engaged in their studies, while also showing that a decreased self-worth and high risk of poor behaviors was linked to having parents lacking in warmth. However, even increased love and affection did nothing to combat the negative effects of helicopter parenting, what children need is a safe space to learn through trial and error.

Children of helicopter parents can also become too dependent on their parents if for them. Letting your child fail and retry is an important part of growing up, encouraging them to learn from their own mistakes. So, I humbly ask of you, allow them to test their limits, to empower themselves through independent learning. It’s natural as a parent to be tempted to make life easier for kids, however struggling is both necessary and beneficial. Showing your kids that you too struggle, can also teach them valuable lessons about resilience and even set them up for future success. Equipping your offspring for adulthood, means granting them the ability to experience hardship and know how to solve it themselves, not controlling them or fixing it for them. Of course, you should be there for them, but there is a fine line between being involved and being told what to do.

Research has found that kids raised by intrusive helicopter parents tend to be a meaner or hostile towards other kids. As a response to extreme parental control, kids act out and assert their dominance to regain power over their lives. As such, they tend to become irritable and less patient when faced with having to relate well with peers. Though, the negative effects of helicopter parenting go far beyond behavior, they affect brain development to the prefrontal cortex which is the part of our brain that makes decisions, controls the brain’s amygdala or ‘fight or flight response.’ When kids feel anxiety, their amygdalas are in control making them feel helpless and overwhelmed. These such responses are what prevent kids from wanting to figure things out on their own.

Even a child well into their teen years could be hindered in their ability to develop problem-solving and decision-making skills because of helicopter parenting. ‘It’s a learning time. You have to learn from experience,’ explains Frances Jensen, co-author of The Teenage Brain, told the Huffington Post. ‘I think parents should make sure they stay out of the day-to-day trial and error, because your kid is going to need to use that experience to learn when to take a risk and when not to take a risk.” Having obstacles to overcome is what helps children to build resilience, to develop coping skills to deal with things that are difficult. As they get older, they’re able to say, when facing a challenge, “Well I got through that so I can probably get through this.” Children need to learn through trial and error i.e. this worked, and this didn’t work. Though this is sometimes difficult for parents to deal with, because of course they don’t want to see their children suffer at all, with no suffering, you build no skills.

Eventually an overprotected child will grow into an adult and face adult problems: “I’m having trouble getting a job.” “I didn’t get accepted to that program I wanted.” “That guy didn’t ask me to marry him.” Whatever it is, if you have no ideas for coping with disappointment, for struggling and persevering, then you’re in trouble. I believe that kind of lack of resilience, which is the feeling of being overwhelmed as an adult and unable to cope, often ends in depression.

Another problem is that parents often want to sort of enjoy childhood all over again through the eyes of their kids. Again, I’m sympathetic, but when you blur the boundaries, because it’s fun to sort of be a teen again, it can lead to over-identification. You want to make it as enjoyable as possible for both of you: so, you want to ensure that your son or daughter enjoys pleasures you were denied and has successes that you didn’t have the first time around. But when you become invested that way, you over take it, you don’t really let your children own their own accomplishments, keeping them all to yourself. So, the child doesn’t end up feeling that whatever they did, they really accomplished. And again, they’re robbed of the feeling that they have the equipment to manage any tasks in the future.

Wanting to protect a child from suffering is also the reason why some parents tend to be very poor disciplinarians. If you are very overly involved with your child, then it’s painful to discipline them because you are so tightly interwoven that you feel like you are disciplining yourself. Which causes many parents to act as a friend and not the parent. But you know, kids have got friends; they really need parents, and parents are the people who say, “No, and this is the consequence if you do the thing that I said you can’t do.” Having parents who set limits enables kids to internalize their own moral compass. They learn to say to themselves some form of, “No, I really can’t do that; that’s my limit.” And the flip side: “Oh, I did this thing wrong, I have to make reparations, and now I feel guilty and bad.” If you didn’t provide any of this kind of training, it’s going to be harder for them to set limits for themselves and know their boundaries.

For parents who have invested heavily in excelling at parenting, who’ve made it who they are as a person, there is the risk that if something doesn’t go well for the child, it means they have failed. It’s something to be aware of, as you try to do your best for your kids: you don’t want them to be afraid of failure more for your sake than their own. What builds confidence in kids is working hard at something and seeing the impact of their hard work—even if it is partially a failure. Confidence comes from making the effort, from putting in the time, and seeing the results. So as a parent you’re better off praising your child for their attempt, even if not successful, than letting your kids know that just about everything they do is perfect story.

Popular wisdom suggests that helicopter parenting is a new phenomenon or is responsible for a host of perceived shortcomings in younger generations. Many articles claim that helicopter parenting is a distinctly Millennial parenting style, or that Millennials were the first generation to be raised by helicopter parents. The term helicopter parenting was originally coined in the 1990 edition of the book Parenting with Love and Logic. Yet helicopter parenting in some form has likely always existed.

Some factors which may play a role in helicopter parenting include the following. Anxiety; parents may be anxious about their children’s safety or success. In some parents, this anxiety may be because of a history of childhood trauma. Parenting style; a 2014 study found that authoritarian parents and those who want their children to conform are more likely to be helicopter parents. Stressful environments and peer pressure; research published in 2014 found a link between dysfunctional family environments and helicopter parenting, parents may also feel pressured to conform to their peers’ parenting style based on what parents around them are saying. Identity; some parents derive a sense of identity or purpose from their children’s achievements. This can damage the parent-child relationship and may also cause helicopter parenting. Competitive environments; parents whose children attend competitive schools or who live in neighborhoods that demand high achievement may attempt to help their children

succeed through an intrusive, controlling parenting style. Different regions, religions, and other cultural milieus have different parenting norms. Social norms; some cultures encourage a highly involved parenting style. Broader social norms about parenting can also spur shifts. For instance, fears about dangerous drivers, kidnappers, and crime mean that many parents don’t allow children to play unattended. Older generations may see this as helicopter parenting due to anxiety.

In To Kill a Mockingbird Atticus Finch says, “There’s a lot of ugly things in this world, son. I wish I could keep ’em all away from you.” It’s like the parents of the late 1990s read that and decided they were going to be the generation that finally succeeds in protecting their child from all that ugliness. What we forget is that he continues the line with, “That’s never possible.” Parenting is a nerve wracking proposition. No one knows what they’re doing, especially with a first child. It doesn’t help that TV dramas and news programs continuously pump nightmare What-If scenarios into our homes and imaginations. It also doesn’t help that should you actually try to give your kids some freedom you run the chance that neighbors will call child protective services to report you. Born out of these fears and worries, Helicopter Parenting is an extremely regimented and directed parenting style with the goal of protecting the physical and mental well-being of the child, sometimes even at the risk of stifling the child.

Work cited

1. “The Negative Impact of Helicopter Parenting Essay.” The Negative Impact of Helicopter Parenting Essay — Helicopter Parentin, www.123helpme.com/negative-impact-of-helicopter-parenting-preview.asp?id=499362.
2. Gregoire, Carolyn, and Carolyn Gregoire. “Helicopter Parents, Prepare For Landing.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 9 June 2015, www.huffpost.com/entry/helicopter-parenting-negative-impact_n_7494932.
3. Nauert, Rick. “Little Good May Come of ‘Helicopter’ Parenting.” Psych Central, 8 Aug. 2018, psychcentral.com/news/2015/06/03/additional-love-does-not-excuse-helicopter-parenting/85298.html.
4. Nelson, Larry J., et al. “Is Hovering Smothering or Loving? An Examination of Parental Warmth as a Moderator of Relations Between Helicopter Parenting and Emerging Adults Indices of Adjustment – Larry J. Nelson, Laura M. Padilla-Walker, Matthew G. Nielson, 2015.” SAGE Journals, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2167696815576458.
5. “| Parenting the Parents; The Impact of Helicopter Parenting.” Rush Hour Daily News | Breaking News, U.S & World News, Politics & Opinions – News around the World, 28 June 2016, www.rushhourdaily.com/parenting-parents-impact-helicopter-parents/.

The positive parenting is a way of looking after children with a positive encouragements and child care as to protect children by sending them into a right place or institution where they can settle and learned to develop both mental and physical. There will be more explanation to clarify on child protection and its importance needed to perform to save such young people in this country (PNG).

Positive parenting is a way of motivating or teaching child to be a self-esteem and correcting some of their mistakes so that they will aware both negative and positive behaver to follow while their brain capacity is more active. Before reach mature, child can do anything that he/she want without knowing the effect weather it can be good or bad and sometimes they harm them self-meaning to say, fight with their peers, putting rubbish into their mouth and make themselves dirty. How can they improve? The most appropriate procure to improve kids is that, give a time by stay with them influencing with positive attention, discipline effectively where they can develop emotionally intelligent, physically and spiritual welfare. “This is an important omission because in general, positive parenting practices, nurturing parenting attitudes, supervision and involvement in school and activities, all relate to the better outcomes for children” (Oyseman et al., 2002, p. 66).

Parents can give positive discipline to a child within a day to be improved but it’s impossible. The possible path to help child reach development is; have commitment to do correction to their wrong so that he/she slowly catching up new things to prosper. When you see that child starts to change its opposite things, that’s rewarding for positive parenting and parents invests are lifetime beneficial.

Whereas, child care or protection means type of support given to children by assessing in line with good guidelines for physical and emotional to make them grow healthier. “Several studies have found that the quality of care children receive in family child care homes is associate with their social, cognitive and emotional functioning” (Zellman et al., 2008, p. 79). The more appropriate way to care child by avoiding all kinds of risk is like; sent them to school where there is an early childhood care and learning center so that teachers treated them step by step imparting skills on how to read, write and also pronounce alphabets (letters) correctly.

Educating them in early stage is more appropriate to build up their interests, picking up new things fast while attending elementary up to tertiary institution without facing any problem. Through education, their mind sets are fully developed having fair ideas on how to handle problems arise to interrupt their life (Joseph, 2019).

Comparing to current situation here in Papua New Guinea, many of the children are grown up without giving any proper protection meaning no advices or information given to train them in early stage to become good man and woman. When parents give a birth, that’s the time where they feed them with only food and their own languages. Under five years and above, children leave their parents and join their peer mates on the streets do smoking and drinking an alcohol while young girls act phonography for money without consider for their future. Then their brains are not fully developed to bring change or improvement into the family, community, society and country as a whole. They are blindly influence other youths which leads corruption in terms of stealing, fighting and raping. The number of uneducated people is higher than educated people who work and survive.

Children’s are given as gift or present to parents by God to look after because they will take care when getting old and also future lies upon their hands. Yet parents continuously ignore it and not responsible to take care of them with encouragements. They leave them alone and grows up with bad habits. Therefore, in order to minimize these kind of problems, make sure child to be educated. Another step is enforcing child to attend Sunday school in any churches so that it will motivate them to see their right path to develop themselves to become leaders of tomorrow.

Parenting Styles

Diana Baumrind (1966, 1967, 1971) revolutionized the field of parenting when she defined three types of maternal and paternal parenting based on differing levels of parental control and acceptance. The three categories of parenting styles that Baumrind (1966, 1967, 1971) identified were authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Maccoby and Martin (1983) later expanded upon this theory of parenting styles by adding another category of neglectful—or uninvolved—parenting, which is characterized by both low responsiveness and low care or demandingness (Maccoby et al., 1983). Permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles became the basis of describing how parental figures exhibit adult control towards their children.

Permissive parents are caring and warm towards their children but are not demanding or firm with house rules or behavior. These parents talk to their children with reason but do not use their authority to control or to tell their children what to do. They are more of a resource instead of a controller of their children and are not regularly attempting to shape their child’s current or future behavior. This is because permissive parents permit lots of freedom, allowing their child to control their own behavior and activities (Baumrind, 1966).

Entirely contradictory to the permissive parenting style, authoritarian parents wholly emphasize obedience, restrictions, rules, and often appear to be detached from their child. Authoritarian parents believe in strictly limiting their child’s autonomy and strive to be in control of many aspects of their child’s life. Authoritarian parents tend to exhibit less warmth towards their children than other types of parents and tend to be less responsive to their child’s needs. Authoritarian parents are likely to believe that a child should listen to them the first time, never contradicting or talking back, and that a child should always accept what they tell them as the truth. Baumrind (1966) states that this form of parenting is less common than it was centuries ago when many American families wanted their children to follow the teachings and will of God, because it tends to be consistent with parents setting an absolute set of standards and behavior that is theologically driven.

Baumrind’s (1966) final type of parenting style is authoritative parenting. Authoritative parents are rational when interacting with their children. These parents implement discipline while also valuing their child’s autonomy and individuality. Although these parents are demanding and use firm control, they do not continuously limit what their child does, allowing them to be an individual who makes their own decisions. They do not use forms of psychological control and allow their children to have a voice that is both listened and responded to. They provide ample amounts of positive encouragement and warmth towards their child. Authoritative parents also value verbal collaboration, asking questions and listening to their child when there is a disagreement (Baumrind, 1966).

Measures for evaluating parenting style. Empirical research that discusses Baumrind’s (1966) parenting styles—as well as other types of parenting practices—use a variety of measures to assess parenting styles. Questionnaires are often filled out by either parents or caregivers, or the children and adolescent participants themselves, quantifying perceptions of parenting practices and styles. One of the most common measures that is used is the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1999). This valid questionnaire was created to measure a subject’s perspective of their parent’s permissive, authoritarian or authoritative style of parenting. The Parental Authority Questionnaire consists of 30 items for each parent, which results in scores for each parenting style for both a mother and father. Another measure that has been used in empirical research is the General Child Management Scale (Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 1998). Parts of this measure have been used for a variety of features, including a child’s positive conduct with their parents and harshness of discipline. A measure that is used that a mother or father would complete would be the Parenting Practice Report (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen & Hart, 1995). Parents fill out items about their type of parenting regarding Baumrind’s (1966) three styles. Valid measures such as these are frequently used to identify parents’ style of parenting and allow those conducting empirical research to quantify and relate parenting to other factors in a child’s or adolescent’s life, such as attachment and social relationships.

Other important aspects of parenting. Many of the studies examining the association between parenting and sibling or romantic relationship outcomes for children and adolescents also look at parenting styles that are referred to as “parenting practices.” Parenting practices encompasses a larger view of parenting outside of Baumrind’s (1966) three parenting styles, however they are certainly very closely related to the three styles of authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. This is because many of the parenting styles that are observed are some variation of levels of warmth and control. Some examples of these parenting practices would be parental warmth, parental supportive behavior, parental care, differential parental treatment, parental control, and parental psychological control used when parenting. Levels of warmth and control for example are extremely important when determining parenting styles defined by Baumrind (1966), and therefore these parenting practices are closely related and frequently exhibit the same explanations across different studies.

Parenting can also differ between multiple children within a family, and therefore parental differential treatment is also important to consider when looking at parenting styles and practices. It is vital to acknowledge that parenting may differ across multiple children within a family system because it could have important implications for the development of each individual child. The quality of other types of relationships is also frequently examined, such as marital relationship quality, levels of marital conflict, the closeness between a child and parent, parental conflict intervention, and the quality of the parent-child relationship. These parenting factors are important to consider when looking at how parenting can be associated with the future relationships of children.

Another feature of parenting that is important to recognize when discussing parenting practices is the family systems theory. Minuchin (1985) discusses family systems theory and explains how the family can be viewed as a system that is organized and structured by the individuals who live within it. Both individual family members and family relationship subsystems contribute to the family system by influencing each other while being independent of one another (Minuchin, 1985). Minuchin (1985) analyzes how this is relevant regarding the relationships of children within Baldwin’s (1906) discussion of how the judgement from notably important people in an individual’s life is important for the crafting of one’s self-image. It is possible that bidirectional influences within family systems could contribute to the future relationships of individuals within a family—such as the formation of an adolescent’s sibling and romantic relationships—and therefore it is important to recognize how each member can influence each other within the larger family system.

Parenting and Social Relationships

Human beings are social animals, and valuable relationships are important for well-being and health. Individuals who engage in a low quantity and low levels of involvement in social relationships has been shown to be predictive of higher mortality rates than in those who have higher levels of relationship involvement, and poor-quality relationships can also negatively impact mental well-being (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Santini, Koyanagi, Tyrovolas, Mason, & Haro, 2015). Having greater involvement in relationships has also been linked to a lower chance of certain health conditions, such as recurrent dysregulation of the autonomic system and development of cardiovascular disease (Everson-Rose & Lewis, 2005; Uchino, 2006). It is extremely important to understand the potential impact of parenting styles on relationships because of how significant social relationships are.

Certain parenting styles could have negative effects on adolescent relationships, and the resulting poor social relations could have dire effects on adolescents’ future relationships and well-being. Parenting styles that might have a positive association to how children and adolescents look at and create relationships, might help families to be better able to understand how their actions form the social development of their children, and how they can adjust parenting to help better their children’s future relationships. Looking at the formation of a child’s perspective of their own relationships and possible factors that can influence a child’s future relationships, such as parenting, is vital for understanding the development and quality of an adolescent’s future relationships.

The importance of quality sibling relationships. Sibling relationships are an important aspect of an individual’s growth and life and are therefore important to examine in depth because of the implications the quality of a sibling relationship can have in the future. It has been demonstrated that positive and quality sibling relationships are associated with greater positive outcomes in an individual’s life, especially in social areas. Positive sibling relationships have been shown to be beneficial for children who have gone through stressful life events because they buffer the effects of internalized symptomatology (Gass, Jenkins, & Dunn, 2007).

Parental responsibility, in simple terms refers to the legal right of parents to decide for their children in respect of a plethora of aspects concerning their lives, including the children’s education, religion, ,edical treatment, administration of property and so on, until the child hits the majority age. There are countless perspectives on what parental responsibility actually means when granted upon parents. For some, it may mean nothing but pure burden while for others it may be viewed as an opportunity to create an asset for the betterment of the world, or something else entirely.

In the United Kingdom, the legal definition of parental responsibility is highlighted in s.3(1) of the Child Act 1989 (CA 1989) as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”. Those rights, powers, responsibilities, as well as duties owned by person with parental responsibility (hereinafter referred to as PWPR) are conventionally as follows;

Education

Nelson Mandela once said “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”, which is essentially why children should be educated. This is supported by the law, particularly s.36 of the Education Act 1944 (EA 1944), which requires PWPR, as part of their duty to ensure that their children are provided with the necessary education. This is especially for children of compulsory school age, that is children aged 5 to 18 in the UK. Failure to comply would amount to a criminal offence, as stipulated under s.39 EA 1944

Religion

Under the common law, PWPR have the legal right to decide on the religious upbringing of the child. Hence, a child is to follow the religious route as decided by PWPR, unless that very decision is contrary to the interest and welfare of the child. This can be well-illustrated by Re G (Education: Religious Upbringing)(2012). On the facts, after the separation of the parents of the children, they had conflict on the choice of religious school their children should attend. The court held in favour of the interest of those children, hence following their mother’s proposed school, which would provide them with greater education opportunities.

Discipline

As one of the methods to discipline children, and if necessary, PWPR usually opt for actions which amount to battery and assault, which technically are one of their rights as part of their parental responsibilities. Any method that is more extreme and would cause great harm or injury to the child would result in the PWPR to be liable for crime. For example, in R v Harris & Harris (1993), the parents committed manslaughter on their daughter when she refused to go for her diabetes treatment. They were both criminally liable for the offence committed.

Right to physical possession of child

This right essentially concerns the right to custody of the child in question. However, this right which allows for a parent to live and have access to the kid is not absolute in nature, since the court would assess in consideration of the welfare of the child, where in some circumstances, it would not be wise to grant this right to the PWPR particularly in cases of ‘significant harm’, as per s.31 CA 1989. Without significant harm being established, the local authority does not have the right to detain the child against the PWPR’s wishes, as under s.20(8) CA 1989. Apart from that, this right may cease to exist in cases where some other has been taking care of the child for a long period.

In Re Agar Ellis, the father had custody of the child, who personally preferred to stay with her mother and practices her mother’s religion. When she turned 16, she applied to be permitted to stay with her mother however, her application was rejected. The is as the court will usually not interfere the common law right of PWPR unless it would be detrimental and unreasonable for the welfare of the child, which in this case, it was not.

Medical treatment

Although PWPR may give consent or decide in respect of medical treatment of a child younger than 16 years, they do not have such privilege when it comes to withholding medical treatment. This is the same for a child above the age of 16, where they have the statutory right to give consent for treatment, but not to withhold their consent. This is supported by s. 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987.

Regardless of the wishes of the child, the treatment that has been consented by PWPR will proceed if it is, especially for the best interest of the child. This is portrayed in the case of Re W (A Minor) (1992), where the court ordered for the treatment to be made for the 16 years old girl against her wishes, as it was for her best interest as well as for her safety. Plus, her refusal had stemmed from her condition of aneroxia nervosa, which had impaired her capacity to make an informed choice.

Administration of property

A child is legally incapable to administer their property until they reach the age of 18. Pursuant to s.3(1) CA 1989, PWPR have the powers and duties for the administration in relation to the child’s property, and under s.3(2), to such rights as the guardian of the estate would have had in relation to the child’s property. Technically, the guardian of the estate has power to control the income and personal profit to which the child is beneficially entitled, but not to receive property as he must account to the child. In Williams v Boulton (1948), PWPR do not have right over a child’s salary or wages.

Surname

The right of changing surname does not fall under s. 2(7) CA 1989, which in cases of a child with more than one PWPR, allow those respective PWPR to act alone in carrying out their duties. This is laid out in s.13(2) CA 1989 which prohibits the changing of the child’s surname during the operation of arrangement order, settling residence, unless the PWPR’s written consent or leave of the court have been successfully obtained.

This issue was dealt with in the case of Re B (1996). On the facts, the court refused to permit the change of surname of the three children to that of their stepfather, although it was genuinely those childrens’ wishes. The justification for this was the strong opposition from their natural father, and that it was not in the childrens’ best interest to completely cut off ties with their father.

Right to consent to marriage

One of the powers and rights of PWPR as under schedule 12 CA 1989, include giving consent to the child’s marriage in circumstances where the child is below 18, but above 16, that is the legal minimum age to get married in the UK. Where the court found unreasonable withholding of consent, especially in light of the welfare of the child, it may override that refusal.

Right to contact with the child

Technically, this right is not automatically conferred upon PWPR although generally, as acknowledged by Lord Oliver, ‘a natural parent has a claim to contact with his or her child’ which will be taken into account by the court. In Re K.D. (1988), there was an attempt by the local authority to cut off parental contact with the child, in replacement to be cared under a wardenship. Lord Templeman in his judgment emphasized that ‘the best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matter not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not endangered.’

Right to represent the child in a legal proceeding

Essentially, this right is not absolute in the sense that rather than having the PWPR representing the child, the court would allow a child to have his or her own legal representative to speak for himself or herself in court for any family proceedings, in light of the welfare of the child in question. This is as in Re D (A child) (2016), where Ryder J expressed that it is a fundamental principle of the English law that the child’s view be heard, otherwise s.1(3)(a) CA 1989 would be violated.

Actress Bette Davis once said, “If you have never been hated by your child, you have never been a parent” (Forbes). Davis recognized that as a parent there are situations where you must enforce the rules and Cathy Gulli acknowledges this in the essay “The Collapse of Parenting”. She describes how authoritative parenting has declined over recent years and the consequences of this deterioration. The essay was published in Maclean’s magazine, a slightly left-leaning publication that is known to use factual information and trustworthy sources. Gulli tries to get parents and parent hopefuls to re-evaluate the way they approach the development of children. She explains how the collapse of parenting has led to many detrimental consequences and how parents can make a difference by changing their behavior.

Throughout the essay, Gulli is insistent that alpha parenting is far more effective than having a democratic household. She expresses her frustration with parents who fail to realize this; furthermore, how children end up being negatively impacted by the choices of the parents. Gulli’s critique of the current style of parenting effectively convinces the audience that parents need to be the alpha in the family; as such, her proposal to rethink how we parent resonates with a readership that most likely has or is in the process of having a child. She does this using a vast amount of evidence, rhetorical devices, a deductive organizational structure, and motifs.

Despite the essay being effective, there is a logical fallacy that appears in one of the main arguments. Gulli employs the slippery slope fallacy to persuade the audience that one action will culminate in a significantly negative outcome. While describing the detriments that have come with recent parenting struggles, Gulli suggests that bad parenting has led to “chronic fatigue” which “mimics ADHD almost perfectly” and has resulted in a “rise … in prescription drug use among children” (The collapse of parenting). The presentation of evidence is done in a way that links bad parenting to a rise in prescription drug use through a chain of events. This logical fallacy may be effective against an unaware reader who does not consciously look for these flaws in logic. However, when this is presented to a serious reader, it may take away some of the credibility of the author because it makes it seem like Gulli has little evidence to support her argument. While the fallacy may take away some of the author’s credibility, but it does not take away from the piece as a whole.

Right at the start of the essay, Gulli portrays a situation that many parents have experienced or heard about to hook the audience in. She talks about how a father asked his daughter, “Could you please just try one bite of your green peas?” and how eating green peas is considered a “favor” (The collapse of parenting). Many parents have experienced a similar situation, so the use of this example helps the target audience connect with the points the author is making. After the example, Gulli suggests that parents are accommodating their kids because they do not want to “threaten [their] autonomy” or “create[] a scene” (The Collapse of Parenting). Using these examples, she draws the reader’s attention to the fact that many parents are ceding authority to their children; effectively establishing a theme before she delivers the thesis.

After telling the “green pea story”, Gulli makes a comparison between it and parenting in general. She suggests that this is a “prime example of how all too often parents defer to their kids because they have relinquished parental authority” (The Collapse of Parenting). By doing this, it reinforces the lack of parental authority theme while bringing the reader’s attention to similar situations in other facets of life. Gulli indicates that “for trivial choices … this approach is fine” but, for more important issues like food which “symbolizes nurturance”, parents must take a stand (The collapse of parenting). By doing this, the author dispels the idea of a complete authoritarian household. It also makes the solution the author is suggesting more appealing by suggesting to still give the kids some freedom. All ideas support the author’s argument that there needs to be more parental control in households.

After presenting the initial argument, Gulli then utilizes a counter-argument against her point. She says that parents have become uncomfortable in the “alpha position” but, “that discomfort comes from a loving place” (The Collapse of Parenting). She also states that “Many parents strive to raise their kids differently from how they grew up” (The Collapse of Parenting). Including this argument shows that Gulli recognizes that there is some apprehension when taking over the alpha role in the family, mostly due to the parent’s own experience. By doing this, she increases the credibility of her argument by showing that she acknowledges the opposing argument and the reasons why some people may not support her point. This will help to persuade readers who may have had traumatic experiences as a child, that being the boss in the family is not always a bad thing.

Following the counter-argument, Gulli then breaks the argument apart saying that: “[M]any kids are overpowering their parents” (The collapse of parenting). The word overpowering means “to overcome by superior force” (Merriam-Webster). By using this diction, Gulli puts the spotlight on the seriousness of the issue. The diction also helps the reader imagine what might happen during an altercation between a kid and a parent. Subsequently, Gulli quotes a psychologist who says, “You need a strong alpha presentation to inspire a child to trust you and depend on you” (The Collapse of Parenting). After the argument, the author includes evidence from a credible psychologist to increase the plausibility of her point. This evidence also reinforces her solution, the idea that it is beneficial for parents to become the alpha in the family. By proving the counter-argument wrong, the author silences some arguments against her while strengthening the integrity of her argument.

As Gulli continues, she uses evidence to support that democratic parenting can lead to bad eating habits in children. She suggests that “parents can’t convince their kids to eat well” and that “junk food is sometimes a reward” stating that many children think that “healthy food is for losers” (The Collapse of Parenting). With this point, Gulli establishes a connection between bad eating habits and democratic parenting. She also indicates how parents are bribing or coercing their kids to get something done rather than telling them to do something. After that, the author includes a piece of anecdotal evidence, a mom that “does not] want [her kids] to get hypoglycemic” so, she brings a “cooler of snacks” for a “30-minute drive” (The Collapse of Parenting). This use of anecdotal evidence is an exaggeration of the situation, but it brings the reader’s attention to how much parents are giving in to their children. Overall, this point is effective because it establishes a negative connotation with parents who let their kids do whatever they want.

Continuing, Gulli uses more evidence to explain the effects of giving kids too much freedom. She uses alliteration saying that kids have been experiencing a “dramatic decline in fitness” (The collapse of parenting). This helps emphasize the seriousness of the drop in fitness levels. She then provides more evidence saying, “[I]t has landed kids as young as 11 or 12 in the cardiologist’s office” (The collapse of parenting). This piece of evidence she uses is very effective because it is a paradox. The first thing many people associate with heart problems is age but, in this case, young people are having problems that are traditionally found in elderly people. She follows up with, “Some hospitals in the U.S. have opened pediatric preventative cardiology clinics” (The Collapse of Parenting). All these things demonstrate the importance of child fitness and how the decline in parenting has put kids at risk of serious ailments like heart conditions.

Finishing up the evidence section, Gulli goes into detail about sleep deprivation and how it has led to prescription drug use. According to her “children do not … get enough rest” and “chronic fatigue” has been misdiagnosed as ADHD because “sleep deprivation mimics ADHD almost perfectly” (The Collapse of Parenting). This passage is effective at establishing background knowledge about why prescription drugs are being prescribed and setting up her next point that links the collapse of parenting to these things. She then concludes, quoting a professor in psychiatry who says, “A medical diagnosis might negate parental shortcomings or a child’s misbehavior” (The Collapse of Parenting). Due to the serious nature of prescription medications, this point will persuade parents to believe in her argument because of how dangerous unnecessary prescription drug use can be. As stated before, although Gulli has a slippery slope fallacy in her logic, this piece of evidence is effective for those who do not recognize the somewhat weak correlation between these ideas.

Next, Gulli suggests that schools have begun to focus less on socialization and more on academic achievement. She says that “the primary objective of educators has become literacy and numeracy” and that this has hindered the development of social skills in children (The Collapse of Parenting). This passage is an effective supporting argument because it shows how society has focused less on human interaction and how it has compounded with a “collapse” in parenting to increase child misbehavior. Gulli uses a great simile to show how kids are being treated: “We’re treating [the children] like little flash drives” (The collapse of parenting). This simile is a perfect way to get readers to imagine the way kids are being force-fed information. We store massive amounts of data on hard drives and expecting kids to have the same capability as a hard drive is absurd. According to Gulli, “[K]ids have become less attached to and influenced by parents” (The collapse of parenting). This point helps support the argument by showing the disconnect between adults and children and as a result, how children have become increasingly influenced by same-aged peers.

Gulli goes on to explain why parenting is so important, citing the negative effects that have happened due to a collapse in parenting. She says that children are “not born knowing right from wrong” and that young children “are not rational beings” (The Collapse of Parenting). The passage is effective because it illustrates the helplessness of young children when growing up and how parents are hurting their children by allowing them to do anything that they want. Gulli then follows up with evidence, saying that “children who are left to discover right and wrong” are more likely to be “anxious, depressed, [unemployed], less … healthy, [and] addicted to drugs or alcohol” (The collapse of parenting). The evidence is used as a scare tactic to convey the seriousness of parenting and how bad the outcome may be in some cases. This passage is effective because it reinforces the thesis while providing some specific evidence as to why the author’s stance on this argument is right.

An increasing trend for parents is to wait until they have a “secure job, a good home, and a dependable partner” before they have children says Gulli (The collapse of parenting). This helps reinforce the point child has become the focus of the family; therefore, some parents are not authoritative enough with their children. Parents are “second guess[ing] the way the way they speak to their kids, what they feed them, how they discipline them and what activities they permit” (The collapse of parenting). This evidence shows the trepidation that parents have when interacting with their kids and that they do not know “How to respect their child but also be the ‘decider’ of the family” (The Collapse of Parenting). This section does a great job of connecting with the target audience, as many parents have had similar thoughts about parenting. It also shows how many parents are overthinking the process of having a child.

While trying to create the perfect childhood for their kids, many parents compare the development of their child to other children or society’s image of how a child should develop. Gulli says that parents are “tracking how quickly their child is growing, how much their child is achieving” (The Collapse of Parenting). While tracking their children, parents are “checking in with the virtual wise man Google” and Gulli provides an example where a mom “feel[s] guilty because [parents] are carrying their babies everywhere, doing all these things, having this connection” (The collapse of parenting). This evidence helps support the author’s point that parents are not providing what children need, since they are too focused on what is going on outside of their household. It also helps the author connect to the audience, as many readers may have experienced some thoughts of parental inadequacy.

Gulli finishes off the essay by increasing her credibility with the audience. She quotes a psychotherapist who says, “Nobody knows what to do when they leave a hospital with an infant” and that “[p]arenting is an awfully frustrating and often a lonely place” (The collapse of parenting). By appearing empathic to what many parents experience when they have a kid, the author establishes herself in a position of credibility. Also, Gulli mentions that “Every parent learns by trial and error” (The Collapse of Parenting). This helps to reinforce the theme that many parents are clueless; so, we need to learn by doing, not by looking at what other parents are doing. This section also makes the writing relatable to many parents who have been in similar situations.

Throughout the entire essay, the words “alpha”, “grown-up” and “decider” are used to establish a motif (The collapse of parenting). These terms are always incorporated in a positive connotation to reinforce the main theme of the essay. For example, Gulli states that “You need a strong alpha presentation to inspire a child to trust you and depend upon you” and that “[Parents] become … the grown-ups their children need” (The Collapse of Parenting). She uses the words “inspire” and “need” to make the connection between positivity and the alpha persona (The Collapse of Parenting). These statements throughout the text build up the theme that parents need to be more dominant in the household; doing so is not adverse to the growth of their children. By reinforcing this theme with the motif, the author can subtly persuade the reader that it is true throughout the entire essay.

The author organizes the essay deductively, with the thesis located in the second paragraph of the essay, followed by the evidence and conclusions. This is effective because establishes the argument while leaving no room for the misinterpretation of the essay. The writing relates to the thesis, supporting the idea that there is a collapse in parenting due to the lack of authority in many households. The deductive organization also caters to readers who do not read the whole article. The thesis is at the beginning, so the readers can get a basic understanding of the essay that will convey most of the author’s message.

A significant portion of Gulli’s essay is dedicated to the negative consequences that occur if there is no alpha in the family. She uses examples such as eating habits, sleep deprivation, and a rise in prescription drug use to provide evidence to support her argument. Gulli also uses rhetorical devices including similes and alliteration, a deductive organizational structure, and an alpha motif to further convey her message. The use of these devices is effective, and they contribute to Gulli’s masterful criticism of current parenting styles and a need for a dominant presence in the household.

Childhood is one of the most important facets of any human’s life. Experiences as a kid shape us forever but, there lack of awareness about how parenting affects children. Gulli raises an important argument with “The collapse of parenting” spreading awareness about problems with current parenting styles. This essay provides a different perspective about parenting and it provokes more thought about the issue in general. Parents should take the time to read this article reflect on their style of parenting and adjust as necessary. Returning what Bette Davis said, to be a parent your child must hate you at least once. Parenting is difficult, and the best way to learn is through experiencing it. Sometimes what is best for a child is not what they want.

For years, single parenthood has been a topic of discussion and whether or not it has negative effects on children. It used to be frowned upon and mothers were looked down on if they chose to do it alone. Now, it is increasingly common and accepted in society. Single parent households make up 23% of households in America (pewresearch.org). That is more than any other country in the world. How will the children be effected? That remains to be the main question. It is believed that single parenthood will have more of a negative impact on a child than positive but, it can go either way depending on the resources available and the individuals environment.

An individuals settings have a lot to do with their behavior. Studies suggest that if there is positive parenting resources and competencies available that the likelihood of adverse child affects would be substantially reduced (Ricciuti, 2004). If a single parent had no financial problems and didn’t have many responsibilities it would make their situation a lot easier. When a parent is absent from the home due to demands of work it creates a space of loneliness for the children involved. If there are siblings present it lessens the burden. Keep in consideration, nuclear families have more support and duties can be split in to multiple ways. In a single parent household there is an emotional and task over load that two parent families do not experience. Whether it was divorce, death, or adoption that led living with one parent, it does not take away the level of difficulty and obstacles they faced in the beginning.

Growing up with a single mother or father is a factor on a child’s development and their cognitive thinking. “Individuals who grew up with a single mother for their entire childhood and to a lesser degree also individuals who experienced parental separation showed a small but persistent decrease in life satisfaction into old age controlling childhood socio-economic status,” (Richter & Lemola, 2017). Quality of life has many factors to it and family relationships is one of them. A persons childhood shapes a lot of our beliefs and skills today. The developmental stages are pivotal to ones future. If all a person can remember is being happy in their household with their single parent, that would result in a state of being content. Yes there might have been times where they struggled and could not get what they wanted but that was okay because that was temporary.

When a father is absent for the entire childhood there are other consequences that take place. Participants who spent the first 15 years with a single mother showed a lower level of social integration during adulthood. That included a smaller number of friends, fewer visits to see family, and less success in romantic relationships. There was also a lower probability of living with a partner and a higher probability of being divorced (Richter & Lemola, 2017). These likelihoods make sense since growing up with one parent you are used to seeing a single person doing everything. Or possibly failed relationships. Either way, independence will be gained and with that it can be beneficial and or a setback.

Next, findings suggest that presence of positive maternal attitudes and parenting resources may significantly mitigate the likelihood of adverse child outcomes of single parenthood. “Duration of children’s experience with a single parent was found to be unrelated to high school achievement” (Ricciuti, 2004). Academic achievement is a big concern for parents whether there are two parents present or not. Ricciuti’s findings did also discover that little to no evidence of systematic negative effects emerged at a later stage. Although, in the African American sample it did suggest that vocabulary scores were somewhat negatively influenced by years of single parent experience. Extended two parent experience were positively affected. Which again supports the idea that nuclear families have more help in the household. Single mothers face more limitations in economic and social resources. These resources help with positive child environments and their outcomes. It is recognized when family income is low in single parent households it increases the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes for their children. Positive family characteristics that support child rearing will enhance a better future in adulthood.

In addition, pupils living in a single mother family do not perform notably worse than others if truancy of the individual is controlled. There are many reasons and to why children miss school. Add the fact of parent separation or divorce, they are bound to not want to be in an environment where they are different. Where their friends and classmates have two parents instead of one. ‘Good parental supervision by single mothers or other interventions that ensure that these children attend school might counterbalance all disadvantages associated with divorce and separation in terms of academic outcomes,” (Dronkers, Pong, & Veerman, 2017). Of course there are other details as to why a child might not want to go to school like classroom disruption and grades. A parent can only do so much to help make sure their kids experience a positive and safe environment at home. When to go to school there are more elements that will keep them wanting to go to school or stay home.

Finally, there seems to be a stigma on how children from a single parent household will turn out. It has been proven in studies that depending on the environment and resources, the likelihood of adverse child effects is little to none. Single parents have a lot on their plate, especially in the beginning they experience things two parent households do not have to. The extra responsibilities they endure is twice as much. ‘Fewer and less consistent studies have reported on negative effects of single parenthood in younger children,” (Ricciuti, 2004). If all a kid remembers is living with their mother or father from a young age, it is easier to be accepting of it. All parents experience their struggles and go through different walks of life. Positive parenting resources result in positive child outcomes.

“No role brings greater joy or blessing than being a parent”.

Privilege, in the dictionary, is defined as the right given to some people and not to others. It is a special opportunity to do something that will make someone proud. It will be a great privilege to become a parent because often the people who pray the most to have a child are the ones who weren’t privileged to have one.

Some say that becoming a parent means giving up your freedom to do something you’ve always loved. Some say it will just cause you more problems to face. Some say that kids will just become your human version of a headache. Some say that it’ll destroy a woman’s figure. And some say that becoming a parent isn’t something to be proud of and it’ll be a hindrance for someone to be whom they have wanted. These reasons play in the minds of every people who’ve run away and despised the responsibilities of becoming a parent.

A child was developed in your womb, but literally not from your womb because it is from God. And everything that is of God is a blessing. The opportunity of many children to see the world had been stolen because of abortion. Some were robbed of a supposed to be bright future because of abuse and violence. Many rebellious children were caused by a lack of love and care from their own parents when they are supposed to feel belonged and are loved. Imagine yourself running away from becoming a parent and raising a child that was born and made of God to become the next president of our country that will end corruption and poverty, or of a child made to discover the cure for cancer, or of a child that has the ability to change the whole world, or even of a child that can save our earth from global warming. Destroying someone’s ability to fulfill their God-given purpose here on earth because of selfishness? Please be ashamed.

Being a parent is being able to love someone unconditionally with no regrets. You are one example of a fruit of good parenting. Without your parent to love and care for you, you won’t be here reading this paper. Notwithstanding the mere fact that you will be a burden to them, they chose to raise you and took you as a blessing and not a burden. You might give up your own freedom of being happy, but you are giving your children their freedom to live and make you happy. Your problems might be doubled, but the sunshine and rainbows you’ll receive will also be doubled. You might have your human version of a headache, but you will also have your human version of a happy pill, medicine, energy, and home. It might destroy your figure if you are a woman, but you will be able to mold and develop a child to have the brightest and most successful future. And it might be the reason to stop you from becoming the person you really wanted to be, but you will be their bridge to be the person the best they can be. Parenting might not award you luxuries and the most expensive jewelry, but according to a well-said quotation, “The most precious jewelry you’ll ever have around your neck are the arms of your children”. Thus, it is.

Parenting style is usually defined based on two dimensions of parental behaviour: control (strictness, demandingness) and warmth (affection, responsiveness) (Baumrind, 1971; Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Based on the two dimensions, control and warmth, four parenting styles have been differentiated (Lamborn et aL, 1991; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Parents who are warm and at the same time exercise moderate levels of control are classified as authoritative. These parents employ inductive reasoning and explain reasons for their decisions as a means of controlling their children’s behaviour. Parents who impose a high level of control and are not warm are classified as autocratic; those who are warm but exercise little control over the child are considered permissive (or indulgent): finally, parents who are not warm and who do not supervise and control their children are called unengaged (or neglectful).

Parental effectiveness has been evaluated in many differing ways, but one of the most widely used approaches focuses on (a) the extent to which parents make demands on their children and (b) the method in which parents elicit compliance with those demands. The two styles of parenting characterized by a high level of demandingness have been labelled “authoritative parenting” and “authoritarian parenting” (Baumrind, 1978; Holmbeck, Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Authoritative parents demand age-appropriate mature behaviour from their children, simultaneously fostering children’s autonomy in a warm and supportive environment. Parental support is evident particularly in the negotiation of family rules and routines. Although authoritative parents have the final say, children are encouraged to participate actively in discussions of decisions that affect them. This involvement in the decision-making process appears to provide children the experience needed to engage in thoughtful and responsible behaviour as adolescents and adults. In addition to deterring children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviour, authoritative parenting has been linked to a wide variety of prosocial adolescent outcomes including general psychological maturity, reasoning abilities, empathy, altruism, school achievement, and a healthy orientation toward work (Baumrind, 1978; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Whereas some of the competencies fostered by authoritative parenting (e.g., independent thinking) might not be viewed as desirable in more communal societies, authoritative parenting has emerged as the most effective parenting style for the socialization of American children (Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). In contrast to authoritative parents who encourage independent thinking, authoritarian parents expect their children to obey without questioning or reflecting on the specifics of a given situation. Authoritarian parenting is characterized by an emphasis on children’s conformity to parental rules in the context of low parental support. Authoritarian parents who are successful in enforcing their demands—usually through harsh, coercive discipline—often raise anxious or depressed children with deficient social skills (Bee, 1997; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Parents inclined toward authoritarian practices but lacking the means with which to enforce their rules often raise aggressive children whose lack of self-control results in subsequent peer rejection and delinquency (Patterson, DeBarsyshe, & Ramsey, 1989).

Several studies have demonstrated that adolescents who are raised in authoritative homes perform better in school that their peers (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Stienbderg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Stienbderg, Lamborn, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1991). These studies suggest that the link between authoritativeness and school success is (1) causal (Stienbderget al., 1989); (2) evident among both younger and older adolescents (Lamborn et al., 1991); (3) robust across different conceptualizations and operationalizations of authoritativeness (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Additional research on school outcomes other that grades, shows that authoritative parenting also is associated with increase in number of attitudinal and behavioural indicators of academic orientation during adolescence, including a stronger work orientation, greater engagement in classroom activities, higher educational aspirations, more positive academic self-conceptions, and lower levels of school misconduct, such as cheating or copying assignments (Lamborn, Mounts, Brown, & Steinberg, in press; Lamborn et al., 1991; Patterson & Yoerger, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1989).

Therefore, counsellors, teachers, and parents must consider the impact parenting styles may have on urban adolescents’ ability to learn and study, if inter-ventions are to be developed to increase students’ academic abilities. However, there has been little research on the possible effects of parenting styles on the academic performance and achievement among urban and rural adolescents. Urban adolescents, who perceive too much or too little support and control from their parents regarding the basic family functions, are likely to be at risk in their intellectual development, thus reducing their school achievement abilities (Olson, 1981).

Similarly, adolescents face the challenge of forming a clear and stable sense of self-identity (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000). A coherent, well-integrated identity structure provides a sense of purpose and direction, and it serves as the basis for effectively coping with and adapting to the demands and vicissitudes of daily life (Erikson, 1968). Based on the presence or absence of active self-exploration and firm identity commitments, Marcia (1966) identified four identity types or statuses referred to as achievers, moratoriums, foreclosures, and diffusions. Identity achievement: Individuals with firm commitment to moral values and personal life goals. Identity moratorium: Individuals with no commitment to an identity and are in the process of establishing long-term life goals. Although these individuals seem to be struggling at times, the active process of seeking an identity is considered appropriate, particularly in primary adolescence. Identity foreclosure: have committed to an identity and externally appear satisfied with life choices. They adopted an identity without the internal struggles with societal demands that those in moratorium and identity achievement experience. They might sacrifice personal values and life goals for popular beliefs and the goals society deems suitable. Identity diffusion: They often feel lost in life and express no interest in improving themselves or creating long-term goals. They have not committed to an identity and are not actively exploring or seeking an identity. Adolescents categorized as being achieved or foreclosed are more firmly committed and goal directed than students in the moratorium or diffusion statuses.

Moreover, the transitional adjustments of urban minority adolescents can be even more troublesome (Seidman, Aber, Allen, & French, 1996) because of already stressful home

and neighbourhood environments (Gillock & Reyes, 1996; Reyes, Gillock, Kobus, & Sanchez, 2000; Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994). As soon as they begin high school, students frequently encounter a larger, mixed of students, class and teachers’ instruction, higher levels of competition (Bryk & Thum, 1989), and inflexible academic ability tracking (Seidman & French, 1997).

Additionally, there can be a loss of social status for ninth grade students who are now the youngest in the school (Eccles et al., 1993). These changes will be combined by increased stress levels, decreased self-esteem (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1993), academic achievement, and social instability (Reed, McMillan, & McBee, 1995). Moreover, the size and system of urban public schools (Seidman et al., 1994) may further worsen these temporary features.

The objective of this study is to outline the following questions: (a) the correlations between parenting styles and the academic achievements among adolescents in urban and rural areas and (b) the correlations between the personal identity types and the academic achievements among adolescents in urban and rural areas.