Love and Logic?

[signingspangler]

This is a class being offered locally (Love and Logic) is this compatible with Attachment Parenting? What are the differences? similiarities? -Thanks!

[New]

This site explains why "Love and Logic" isn't AP. http://www.parenting-child-developme...and-logic.html

Also see this lay review in an AP group:

The major flaw with the system is what to do with the kids during tantrum b/c they say to lock your child in their room or at least put them in there and close the door and let them scream and cry. You aren't supposed to go in there or let them out until the child has calmed down even if it's hours.

http://community.babycenter.com/post...love_and_logic

And similarly:

But for those who've started with attachment parenting, it's close to useless and some advice will even be considered as lacking respect for the child.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3NLEIX2LVBSJN

[A&A]

They changed their name from "Tough Love" to "Love and Logic." I think that says it all.

[SunshineJ]

Yeah they lost me when they were advocating taking off the inner doorknob to better lock your child in their room. I found a couple of their suggestions to have merit (telling a child it makes you sad to see them misbehaving vs yelling at them, things like that) but overall it wasn't close to my style. I don't think someone who practices AP would be too favorably impressed.

[A&A]

[QUOTE=SunshineJ;14319722 I found a couple of their suggestions to have merit (telling a child it makes you sad to see them misbehaving [/QUOTE]

Even that bothers me.......it's all about manipulation and guilt.

[Sierra]

I'll come back to post more tomorrow. Right now I'm at work and need to get back to business. I took a Love and Logic course while doing therapeutic foster care for kids who had not developed internal motivation due to the way they'd been parented previously. There were aspects of it I didn't go for, but other aspects I found helpful. I have also used a few aspects of the classroom version in the religious schools I have run, and I've found those particular aspects effective and useful.

I have watched Love and Logic develop over the years, and it has definitely changed since its earliest incarnation. I remember when the Love and Logic founders argued that it was okay to use physical punishment. They later changed their minds, and spoke frequently about why that was. They didn't just take it out of their books, etc., but they actually actively began to speak against it.

I don't think Love and Logic is incompatible with AP, depending on how you use it. The nice thing about Love and Logic is that it doesn't require you to use it "by the book" in full form. You can throw in a couple of the tools here and there as they seem appropriate to you.

I'm not the biggest fan of Love and Logic as a whole, but I think some of the tools are worth looking at for folks looking to add a few tools to their toolbox...even for AP parents. I think that as kids get older too, more of the tools can be used in AP-friendly ways. I wouldn't necessarily look to it for AP-friendly tools when it comes to very young children.

[Kristine233]

Originally Posted by Sierra

I'll come back to post more tomorrow. Right now I'm at work and need to get back to business. I took a Love and Logic course while doing therapeutic foster care for kids who had not developed internal motivation due to the way they'd been parented previously. There were aspects of it I didn't go for, but other aspects I found helpful. I have also used a few aspects of the classroom version in the religious schools I have run, and I've found those particular aspects effective and useful.

I have watched Love and Logic develop over the years, and it has definitely changed since its earliest incarnation. I remember when the Love and Logic founders argued that it was okay to use physical punishment. They later changed their minds, and spoke frequently about why that was. They didn't just take it out of their books, etc., but they actually actively began to speak against it.

I don't think Love and Logic is incompatible with AP, depending on how you use it. The nice thing about Love and Logic is that it doesn't require you to use it "by the book" in full form. You can throw in a couple of the tools here and there as they seem appropriate to you.

I'm not the biggest fan of Love and Logic as a whole, but I think some of the tools are worth looking at for folks looking to add a few tools to their toolbox...even for AP parents. I think that as kids get older too, more of the tools can be used in AP-friendly ways. I wouldn't necessarily look to it for AP-friendly tools when it comes to very young children.

This. I went to a L&L course (free) when my son was around 3 years old. I was kinda at my wits end. Lets face it, you sometimes have to parent special needs kids differently. I went to school for early childhood development and have always practiced more AP style parenting, I wasn't sure how compatible it would be for us. But I was able to take some of the things from L&L and apply them. You really just can't walk into ANYthing and just do what is suggested, you have to have the ability to recognize what works for your kids and family and adapt it. If you can do that, then perhaps you may discover a few things that you can alter to work for you.

[Chinese Pistache]

Originally Posted by Sierra

I'll come back to post more tomorrow. Right now I'm at work and need to get back to business. I took a Love and Logic course while doing therapeutic foster care for kids who had not developed internal motivation due to the way they'd been parented previously. There were aspects of it I didn't go for, but other aspects I found helpful. I have also used a few aspects of the classroom version in the religious schools I have run, and I've found those particular aspects effective and useful.

I have watched Love and Logic develop over the years, and it has definitely changed since its earliest incarnation. I remember when the Love and Logic founders argued that it was okay to use physical punishment. They later changed their minds, and spoke frequently about why that was. They didn't just take it out of their books, etc., but they actually actively began to speak against it.

I don't think Love and Logic is incompatible with AP, depending on how you use it. The nice thing about Love and Logic is that it doesn't require you to use it "by the book" in full form. You can throw in a couple of the tools here and there as they seem appropriate to you.

I'm not the biggest fan of Love and Logic as a whole, but I think some of the tools are worth looking at for folks looking to add a few tools to their toolbox...even for AP parents. I think that as kids get older too, more of the tools can be used in AP-friendly ways. I wouldn't necessarily look to it for AP-friendly tools when it comes to very young children.

I agree. IMO, the idea of logical and natural consequences is sound. I wouldn't pay for the class though. I'd find a recent edition of the book if you are interested in it.

[nextcommercial]

It's a great program. I like it. But, I don't follow it religiously. I use what I want, and ignore what I don't want.

We all do what's best for our family. There isn't one perfect book or theory that will work for anybody, much less everybody.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by Chinese Pistache

I wouldn't pay for the class though. I'd find a recent edition of the book if you are interested in it.

I don't know. I had read the books prior to taking the course, and I actually preferred taking the course because we got a chance to hash some stuff out and to practice the tools before deciding what to bring into use with our kids.

Also, the first times I read the books, I threw the baby out with the bathwater. When I took the course, I ended up seeing more ways to incorporate more of the tools while sticking with my overall sense of what I wanted things to be like for everyone in our home. It actually took me until the last class to admit that there were some tools I could use...I was one of those "students" who questioned everything and remained skeptical throughout the course.

[ecstaticmama24]

I've been thinking about going to a L&L course too. I don't know alot about it, but my view with pretty much everything is, take what you like and leave the rest.

[thepeach80]

We just started these classes on reccomendation of my son's psychiatrist and therapist. We've done just one class so far and I like it overall. They did specifically say no locking them in their room and we're working on that portion trying to perfect what we want to do and how. I'm thinking it'll work well for us.

[lilyka]

i read the book and took away some really good tools. it didn't all fit my style but some of the things were really good and things I didn't think about. The best thing I learned was that it was ok to let natrual consequences take their course and let kids work things out themselves (such as if they are not turinging in thier homework let them work it out with their teacher. )

[terrabella]

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

I found a couple of their suggestions to have merit (telling a child it makes you sad to see them misbehaving vs yelling at them, things like that)

Originally Posted by A&A

Even that bothers me.......it's all about manipulation and guilt.

How is being honest = to manipulation and guilt?

[thepeach80]

I know some people view it as you're telling them you're sad in order to get them to do something different. I think it can be a fine line, but if you are really sad by them acting like that why not tell them? Isn't it the same as your child being bullied and telling the child doing it that they are hurt by their words and asking them to stop? The child is not trying to manipulate but share w/ the other person how they feel since it might not be obvious to the other child. I think it's different than saying I would love you so mcuh if you did this thing.

[Pavlovs]

I've read the L&L books on parenting and teaching and found lots of great ideas in them both. If you think of it as a basic philosophy and don't take each individual suggestion as gospel then there's a lot of good in it. For me, I think about the general idea of putting responsibility back on the children instead of on you (parent or teacher). So when a student says to me "I lost my homework" I say "Hmmm, what are you going to do about it?" When my son does something he's not supposed to I react similarly, as in I don't have to solve the problem, it's his problem to take care of.

There's also a lot about having children choose their own punishment for behavior incidents, or offering them 3 choices and letting them choose the one they want. It teaches the child that they do have control over their lives and that they are responsible for themselves. Children often want us (adults) to solve all their problems and/or work stuff out for them. L&L puts it back on the child.

[sparklefairy]

Originally Posted by Sierra

I'm not the biggest fan of Love and Logic as a whole, but I think some of the tools are worth looking at for folks looking to add a few tools to their toolbox...even for AP parents. I think that as kids get older too, more of the tools can be used in AP-friendly ways. I wouldn't necessarily look to it for AP-friendly tools when it comes to very young children.

I completely agree.

I took one class in the series before I dropped it because the manipulation, age-inappropriate expectations, and glee with which the instructors described tricking children (suggesting "solutions" to problems without discussing all of the ramifications to the child, then leaving the child to deal with the unforseen consequences alone) and levying consequences that were just plain mean turned my stomach. When I've mentioned specifics to friends who took (different) L&L classes as their AP'ed children grew older, they reacted with shock, so it's possible that I got a bad teacher.

But the general idea is useful.

[Jugs]

L&L is one of those things that has the potential to be done really really poorly. I do agree with their premise that children need opportunities to make mistakes, but I think that the consequence of that mistake can be too high, particularly for a very young child. Like I would never ever allow my child to go hungry as the result of forgetting their lunch at home; for a very young child I would indeed bring their lunch (if possible), but for an older child I wouldn't be opposed to them having to go to the main office for an IOU. Although, as an adult I tend to keep small snacks in my purse just in case, so it makes sense to teach a child to do the same with their backpack.

The issue with a child leaving the house without a coat, I do agree with first using a non-combatitive method of sending them out with their coat (like presenting 2 reasonable choices, both of which result in the child having a coat). Obviously that won't work with all kids, so depending on the child and the situation, I would likely provide the safety net of secretly bringing their coat along anyway; it send the message that I was looking out for their best interest, not just telling them what to do.

I also found that L&L idea of how to "help" was very effective with my kids. Like ds (autistic) is now getting the hang of dressing himself, but gets easily frustrated with shirts. He wants to do it himself and he gets even madder if I offer to help, so I tried the suggestion in L&L of offering to help by saying something like "Shirts can be confusing. Do you want to see how I put on a shirt?" and then demostrate putting my head through the bottom of the shirt. I'm sure that concept isn't unique to L&L, but it works for us because ds still puts on his shirt by himself, yet with covert assistance that keeps his ego intact.

I don't know, from what I gather L&L is less harsh now (I never read the older editions); its one of those things where it can come in handy for day-to-day stuff, but it can also be used in a punitive, damaging way, depending on the midset of the parent.