The second most important thing is discipline (Brazelton & Sparrow, 2003). A child’s social-emotional development is as important as their cognitive and physical development. It is important to know that children are not born with social-emotional skills. It is the role of the parents, caregivers, and teachers of children to teach and foster these abilities. A child’s social-emotional development provides them with a sense of who they are in the world, how they learn, and helps them establish quality relationships with others.
In order to prepare children for the outside world, they should be fully socialized and be able to interact effectively with people from different backgrounds and cultures (A. Ricardo, nd). Since homeschooled children are isolated most of the time,they are not exposed to “real life” situations such as peer pressure and group dynamics which occur in traditional schools and continue in different forms throughout adult life. Lack of these essential elements may lead to a concern that homeschooled children will be unable to deal with situations which ask them to interact with other individuals who came from different backgrounds and cultures and thus become to be unwillingness to accept different beliefs, views, cultures and customs which differ from their own (A. Ricardo, nd). Moreover, by comparison with homeschooling in which the children are loved in a family because they are their parent’s children, in the traditional schools children respected because they are students and respect equally to all the other children who studied at school. By this way, the traditional schools are served as a model of some aspects of citizenship and provides the children with skills and values for their adult life (RL.
• Encouragement: if children are not given the praise and encouragement they need, this will affect their relationships and friendships as they get older and they will have poor attachment this can develop into anxiety, depression and they will lack motivation. • Learning difficulties are also a factor that influences a child’s development. Children with learning difficulties will need extra support with certain areas of development and may develop low self-esteem because they get annoyed with themselves for not being able to do something, such as a simple numeracy problem or read a book. External factors affecting learning and development are likely to be limited access to services and support, but parents and carers may not be aware of this. • Children with ill heath on a regular basis can develop much more slower, this may cause longer term issues such as failure to grow or thrive.
Sometimes foster care ends in the unbiological parents adopting the foster child. During the time that a child lives with a foster family, foster parents offer love and safety to the child. But of course, biological parents do have many challenges. Often children in foster care have gone through a lot and do not immediately switch over to a better attitude once they reach a safer environment. Foster parents have to work with hard behaviors of the foster child, but also of the biological parents of that child, and one cannot pretend that fostering a child with an abusive or neglective history does not offer any
It is their responsibility to nurture their children by means of providing the physiological, security, social, and self-esteem needs of their children. But, it is important to keep in mind that parents are not solely the factors that contribute to the behavior and total identity of their children. What becomes of their children is mainly because of two agents: nurture and nature. The hereditary factors that influence growth and development that are based on genetic make up is the nature agent, while the environmental factors that affect the behavior, cognition, and emotion of a child such as parents, family, siblings, school, friends, nutrition, and experiences are all under the nurture agent (Feldman, 2008). Primarily contributing to the nurture agent, parents give significant influence on the character development and behavior of their children (Baumrind, 1991).
The attachment theory is most commonly observed in the parent- child scenario, as it is in Bowlby’s study which regarded the existence of the attachment as a child needing some sort of person to give them a security and assurance. It is explained that with lack thereof, the individual would find it difficult to explore horizons because there is that part of their development, needed to be fulfilled with such assurance, that wasn’t met during childhood, thus such insecurities may surface. Further, it is pointed out that the relationship established between the parent and the child has an impact in the child’s behavioral and emotional self-regulation. It relies heavily on the level in which the parents are able to meet the child’s needs for someone to stand as a stronghold of confidence and to provide them the feeling of safety. Attachment theory also explains levels in a child’s ability to place recall or differentiate
Attachment theory was developed to explain the intimate bond between the infant and the caregivers, and how this bond affects the development of the child(REF). Since then, this theory has developed greatly, and now incorporates a great foundation of empirical evidence. Various studies examine how attachment is related to children’s cognitive and emotional development, classifications of attachment styles as well as validated measurements of them, and ideas on how attachment changes or is consistent into adolescence and adult life. One of the most important concepts of attachment theory is internal working models. These internal working models are mental representations of the self and others, to help understand social interactions.
In articulating this critical response, Gallacher and Kehily (2013: 227) refer to work by researchers Prout and James (1997) who outline certain characteristics of sociocultural approaches to the study of childhood which “value children’s contributions to society on their own terms” (Gallacher and Kehily 2013: 227). Such approaches see children as active in their own construction rather than mere subjects of a programmed developmental process. Nevertheless, Gallacher and Kehily (2013) also emphasize that Prout and James’ outlined characteristics do not “adequately summarise all of the diverse work in the sociocultural study of childhood, but it does provide a useful summary of some key ideas within the field” (227). Gallacher and Kehily (2013) further discuss this “binary opposition becoming/being” (240) by identifying the two historical approaches to understanding childhood: developmental and sociological. Both of these approaches seek to understand the process of becoming adult and the process of becoming social, respectively.
We live in a complex, unpredictable world, filled with an array of family styles and personalities. Whether or not we recognize it, the family in which one is raised or currently resides plays a pivotal role in their development and opportunities. While we should not blame our circumstance on where we came from, it is crucial that we understand how our childhood influences why we are the way we are. One phenomenon that affects several families, particularly ones with low-income, is parentification. Parentification, also known as the role-reversal of a parent and a child, is not inherently harmful for a child, but it is important to look at the situation objectively and consider the risk-factors.
However, the intention was clear: to include parents in decision-making concerning their children who were in receipt of child welfare services. Working in ‘partnership’ with parents: Much has been written about the nature of partnership with parents within the child welfare system. A key factor is that partnership is a process rather than an event, the desired outcome being the strengthening of parental responsibility. Some of the key features of successful ‘partnership’ with parents are: • A shared commitment to negotiation and actions concerning how best to safeguard and promote children’s welfare • A mutual respect for the other’s point of