A. How Children should be raised.

Nowadays, the whole theme concerning childrearing has been thoroughly discussed in almost all societies around the world. Are parents trying too hard to make the perfect kid? Parents always want what is best for their child and the different methods used by parents to achieve “what is best” has sparked the discussion about the upbringing of children. The three texts presented in this task each have a different opinion regarding childrearing.

1.
The first text “Why I love my strict Chinese mother” is a comment from an 18-year-old girl who has been raised under strict parenting. Her mother has been intensely criticized for her way of bringing up her children. However the daughter, who also wrote the comment, does not express unhappiness with the way she was raised. She actually praises it.

The girl named Sophia was together with her younger sister raised under strict circumstances where the parents set up rules that the children must follow. These rules included, never to attend a sleepover or play date, watch TV or play computer games, must be the No. 1 student etc. Rules that for some may seem inhumane but rules that Sophia thinks made her the independent woman she is. As she mentions in her comment: “I think your strict parenting forced me to be more independent”. Whenever her parents knew she did her best, she was acknowledged. With the strict parenting she comments on how that has made her never take the easy way out and fully make use of her potential.

The second text “Let them eat pizza: Parenting guru’s recipe for bringing up children” contradicts the strict childrearing and claim that a more stress-free parenting method is best for both the children as well as the parents. Strict parenting makes no difference for the children when they are adults, thinks Dr. Bryan Caplan. Parents should “cut themselves some slag” and let the children choose more freely. He believes parents should accept that children’s lives are not formed by them but by the child itself. He uses academic research to support his beliefs.

The third text deals with the issue of parents forcing their children to live a life under their circumstances. A.S. Neill, the writer of the text, believes that pressing children into learning stuff they do not want makes them lose their creativity. If children will not be allowed to make their own choices, we will just create a generation of robots. The text is a Policy Statement to spread awareness on Summerhill School as a school that respects the children, lets them be free and therefore generate happy and creative children.

2.
A.S. Neill is the founder of Summerhill School and he uses several strategies to engage the reader in his Policy Statement.

Firstly, he catches the reader by using the famous Russian ballet dancer, Nijinsky, as an example of someone who was not suited for school. She did not have great talent in school but despite that fact, she was still a success in life. “What a loss to the world if Nijinsky had really to pass those exams” (ll. 6-7). With this sentence he makes the reader think correspondingly to himself that this is the right way of thinking.

Throughout the text A.S. Neill uses the logical appeal, Logos. He uses logos to appeal to the logical sense in the reader and convincing them that he is trustworthy.

This can be seen in this statement of his: “The notion that unless a child is learning something the child is wasting his time is nothing less than a curse – a curse that blinds thousands of teachers and most school inspectors.” (Page 7, ll. 13-15). With this statement he probably would like the reader to agree on that thinking school is only about learning is wrong. It is clear that he uses a statement like this as advertising for the Summerhill School. It supposedly has the same beliefs as the statement.

By using Logos he seems to be a knowing and reliable person and therefore make parents place their children in Summerhill School instead of other schools.

3. The main problem Kate Loveys article addresses is “what is the right parenting?”. Her article is based on statements from the so-called “Parenting guru”, Dr. Bryan Caplan. He suggests parents to cut off the strict childrearing and let children make more choices on their own. Whether you agree with Dr. Caplen’s parenting principles or not, his suggested childrearing methods are of an extremely loose form. As what Kate Loveys concludes from Dr. Caplens opinions: “Children should be allowed to eat pizza and watch more television” (ll. 1). This might not be the right way to go. At a young age children often only wants to eat what taste good and in many cases that is junk food. They are regardless of their health. Luckily, children are not really able to choose what they want to eat, it is their parents who buy the food. So even though Dr. Caplen believes that parents should let children decide, they are still affected by the choices made by the parents. The same goes with TV, if the parents chose not to have any, the children would not watch any. Dr. Caplen says: “Accept that your children’s lives are shaped mostly by their genes and their own choices …” (ll. 18-19). This is exactly why parents should make some rules and choices for their children. In this current society it is neither possible to do whatever you like, nor is it legal. Lets say a child wanted to ride its bike without a helmet, start smoking etc. the parents need to make some sort of obstruction, to learn and chance the child’s way of thinking. The article is right in saying that parents should not be too overprotective. If parents are like the so-called “Tiger mothers” it may end up putting too much pressure on the child. This could result in stress and an unhappy child who is not able to make choices for themselves. The discussion about parenting is never going to be agreed on. And maybe it is only the parents who know best. But looking at this article, the best way of parenting is to do with a moderate mix of strict and loose principles.