Thoughts About John Rosemond’s Six-Point Plan for Raising Happy, Healthy Children Parenting (Long Version)

Thoughts About John Rosemond’s 
Six-Point Plan for Raising Happy, Healthy Children

(Long version of Chuck’s Idea Letter #10)

I’ve been thinking about discipline a lot lately–partly because I’m currently teaching a course on disciplining children at Parents Place.

But in addition I’ve also been reading a very interesting book by John Rosemond called The New Six-Point Plan for Raising Happy, Healthy, Children. He’s a psychologist who has been around a while, who says he doesn’t believe in psychology, who has done a lot of work with parents, and who has published numerous other books, including: Teen-Proofing; Because I Said So!; Parent Power: A Common-Sense Approach to Parenting in the 90’s and Beyond; John Rosemond’s New Parent Power; and others.

Rosemond’s Six-Point Plan

Here are the chapter headings of his six-point plan: 1) The Parent-Centered Family; 2) The Voice of Authority; 3) The Roots of Responsibility; 4) The Fruits of Frustration (the child’s frustration–CA); 5) Toys and Play–The Right Stuff; and 6) Television, Computers, and Video Games–More Than Meets the Eye. Point number seven is Love ‘Em Enough to Do the First Six! He also presents, in an afterword, Rosemond’s Bill of Rights for Children, which are, essentially, that children have the right to be bossed around by their parents.

I’m really enjoying this book, The New Six Point Plan, partly because it is really challenging me to think about and question my “New School” approach to parenting. He refers to himself as “old fashioned,” and I’d say he is certainly in the running for the title “King of the Old School Approach to Parenting.” If Supernanny (Jo Frost) can be considered “Queen of the Old School Approach to Parenting” (I think she can), John Rosemond is the king. Now there’s a match made in heaven!

Old School Is Not Necessarily Bad

I have said from the start of my talking and writing about New and Old School parenting that the Old School methods aren’t necessarily bad, but that they are not working so well with many of today’s savvy, autonomous, well-connected, and even defiant children–of all ages. For some of those kids, on the “defiant” end of the “compliant-defiant continuum,” the Old School methods just make things worse.

However, for many other kids, toward the other end of the continuum, who are more compliant, they do work fine, just like they did for us when we were kids.

It’s that group of kids in the middle, who are resistive, rebellious, and strong-willed enough to cause behavior problems that I’m wondering about. They are resistive, and not very compliant or cooperative with parental or teacher demands. However, according to Rosemond, Old School methods, diligently and consistently applied, can pressure these resistive children into obedience.

Positives about the Old School Approach

I actually agree with much of what Rosemond writes. I think there can be lots of positive benefits from Old School parenting methods, especially for more or less compliant kids, and for some resistive toddlers. It’s possible that for most of these children, there are no “right” or “wrong” approaches to parenting, and t hat many of these children will do well with any approach, as long as their parents are consistent and decisive (an idea I agree with Rosemond and countless others on).

Parents who are naturally inclined to the Old School methods, and who might find my ideas unrealistic or my techniques difficult to learn, might benefit from reading this author. He’s very articulate, very experienced, very creative, and whole-heartedly committed to Old School parenting methods. On top of that, he makes it sound like those methods are the only legitimate approach to parenting (which they’re not), and he comes up with many examples of behavioral interventions for parents to use to “solve” behavior problems their kids are presenting.

In short, Rosemond appears to be a master at “upping the ante” in the power and control competition with children, and gives parents lots of ideas about how to assert their authority to win skirmishes and battles and bring the war to an end by making children obey. For example, one of his preferred punishments is sending the child to their room for the rest of the day, and then sending them to bed immediately after supper.

Example #1

He describes an incident in which a four-year-old girl tells her mother she is not getting dressed, and will not to go to school. He commends the mother for handling the immediate situation properly (telling the girl she’ll be taken to school in her pajamas if she doesn’t dress). But he says the real problem is this girl’s constant defiance of the mother’s authority, and says,

When she (daughter) arrived home from school that afternoon, I would have told her that as a result of her defiance that morning, she would spend the rest of the day in her room, and go to bed immediately after dinner.

I would have looked her in the eye and said, ‘This is the way it’s going to be, my love. When you defy me, it will not matter whether you ultimately do what I tell you to do or not. You will be punished.

This little girl needs to know, as do many American children, that obedience is more than simply doing what one is told; it is doing what one is told without even the slightest display of defiance. Some people think this is too much to ask of a child, especially one as young as four. We know, however, that most children born before the 1960s (during which traditional parenting was demonized and replaced with what I call “postmodern psychological parenting”) were obedient by age three. Even today, in underdeveloped nations that have not imported our dysfunctional parenting practices, children are obedient by age three. In fact, it is vital to the child’s social and emotional health to instill such behavior. (p.54)

Example #2

Rosemond describes an incident with his own seven-year-old grandson, who refused to eat the spaghetti grandpa had prepared. Rosemond told him in no uncertain terms that spaghetti was what was being served, and he didn’t have to eat it if he didn’t want to, but that nothing else would be prepared for him. Plus, ice cream was coming for dessert, but only for those who ate their whole meal. The grandson ate the spaghetti and announced that he liked it, and would eat it again. The author comments that this is a story about the power of speaking with authority, and telling the child “the way it was, and the way it was going to be.” It was also a story about teaching a child manners and to be thankful for everything we have. “Effective discipline,” he says, “accomplishes something in the short term and the long term, and it’s the long term that truly matters.” (p. 56)

Effective Communication

Rosemond says that effective discipline is based on effective communication, not on effective punishments He says:

Please do not misunderstand me on this point. Effective discipline is not constituted primarily of effective punishment, or consequences–the new, less menacing term. As I’ve explained, it is constituted of effective communication. It’s about how a parent talks, and by that I am referring not only to the words that emerge from a parent’s mouth, but also to his or her tone, facial expression, and body language. Nonetheless, effective talking will not accomplish all of what needs to be accomplished. No matter how effectively one talks, misbehavior will still occur.

Effective, authoritative speech–what I call “alpha speech”–will take care of many of those misbehaviors, but it will not take care of all of them. Punishment will sometimes be necessary. When it is required, the object should be to instill a permanent memory in the child, a memory that will deter repetitions of the same misbehavior. Unfortunately, the most popular punishment of the postmodern parenting age, the one most recommended by professionals, is the least effective at instilling such memories. In fact, it has caused more problems than it has solved. I’m talking about time-out. (p.57)

What about listening?

I (CA) have no problem with any of the ideas in the previous two paragraphs about the grandson and “alpha talk.” What I question is why Rosemond leaves listening out of the formula for effective communication. As a matter of fact, he says very little about listening to children throughout the book, and when he does he takes a position similar to most controlling parents–namely, “I better not listen too much, or I’ll be giving in to my child.” I (CA) value listening to children very highly, and consider it the “magic wand” in parenting.

The “delusion of control”

But mainly, I’d say, Rosemond’s methods operate under the single most common mistake that characterizes the Old School approach to parenting and discipline, and that is the “delusion of control.” By that I mean the idea that parents can–or should–control their children’s behavior, which I consider a “belief falsely held” (Webster’s definition of delusion.)

Rosemond approaches control the way most of the Old Schoolers do: parents need to be in charge, and this means controlling their children’s behavior. For example, he says (p. 85), “When previously inconsistent parents finally take control away from a misbehaving child, that child experiences an immense sense of relief and security. The trick to never having to wrestle control away from a misbehaving child is to expect obedience in the first place.”

Believing parents should be in control of children’s behavior, Rosemond is all for pressuring these children with a power and control approach to parental authority that makes the parent a “benevolent dictator.” He doesn’t have any use at all for the methods and authors I highly respect–for example, Thomas Gordon, and his technique of active listening. On the first page of the chapter on discipline, Rosemond criticizes “postmodern parenting experts,” who, he says, believe the family should be a democracy, and don’t believe that parents should “pull rank” on their children regarding rules, chores, privileges, and so on. He says:

Rather, these authors prescribe compromise, thus maintaining the assumption that in a democratic family no one is more powerful than anyone else. In that regard, they market what is called “the art of active listening,” which essentially prohibits parents from telling children what to do. Instead, parents should listen nonjudgmentally to a child’s point of view, calmly communicate their opinions, and leave it to the child to assume responsibility for his own actions. Sounds good, eh? Unfortunately, the democratic family is a fiction. (p. 47)

I don’t know of any author who claims the family should be democratic, or says that parents should let children do whatever they want. In addition. Rosemond grossly distorts the purpose and process of active listening in the above passage.

Still, you might like many of his ideas and methods better than you like mine. If so, I encourage you to read the book and learn more about his approach. The book might help you parent better–more consistently, decisively, and confidently, and in a manner that suits your own personality better than my ideas do. If so, it will benefit you and your children as well.

Parent as benevolent dictator

In his chapter on discipline (“The Voice of Authority”), Rosemond touts the value of the parent(s) as “benevolent dictator(s).” The parents are always and clearly in charge. They are the boss. They make the rules. They expect and demand obedience. They enforce the rules through punishment for misbehavior and disobedience. “Because I said so!” is their motto and standard. But their approach is always guided by decisiveness and consistency in a loving, nurturing parent-child relationship.

When parental authority is weak, love becomes indulgent and possessive, overly protective. Similarly, without the tempering effect of love, parental authority becomes harsh, severe. Love provides meaning and a sense of belonging to a child. Love gives a child reason to strive. Authority provides direction to the child’s strivings. Love and authority are not opposite poles, but two sides of the same coin. The clue to proper parenting is to be both authoritatively loving and lovingly authoritative. (p.49)

Decisive and Consistent More Important than Being Right

I like the following statement (from p. 114), where he emphasizes the importance of parents being decisive and consistent, as opposed to trying to always be “right” in their decisions about their children. “A child’s sense of security is founded upon parental love and authority, and parents’ indecisiveness causes children to feel insecure. That insecurity is likely to be expressed in the form of behavior problems. Do you see? The more you try to avoid making mistakes that could cause problems, the more problems you cause.”

While Rosemond speaks frequently and eloquently about parents’ love and authority in relation to their children, I don’t recall him saying anything about parents showing respect toward their children, which I consider a critically important aspect of parenting that is too often severely lacking in families that have serious child behavior problems.

Closing out the chapter on discipline, Rosemond presents 16 questions from parents describing difficult situations with their children, and he gives fascinating suggestions based entirely on methods of parental power and control. I think a lot of his ideas are appropriate and quite useful, especially the ones with young children. Here are a couple of examples.

Example #3

A mother describes the readjustment problem her four-year-old has coming back home after a weekend with the grandparents, who spoil him. Rosemond suggests doing what he and his wife did: take the bull by the horns and sit down to explain (in a “transitional conversation”) to the child that visits with the grandparents were “vacations” from the rules of the home, but when he comes home the vacation is over.

Immediately after every visit, we held a transitional conversation with the kids, reminding them of our expectations. If they still had difficulty with self-control, we sent them to their rooms with instructions to remain there until they felt settled. It wasn’t long before we were truly enjoying our visits with the folks, and the kids were making the transition without difficulty. (p. 117-118)

Example #4

Two parents admit to being too indecisive and inconsistent with their six-year-old, and ask how he is likely to react if they suddenly transform themselves from being “parent wimps” by becoming benevolent dictators. Rosemond responds by saying that the child won’t like it because he’ll have to give up a certain amount of control within the family.

Unresolved disciplinary issues impede communications and expressions of affection between parent and child, and resolving the issues removes the impediments. It’s impossible for parent and child to have truly good communication with each other until the child completely trusts and feels he can rely upon the parent’s authority…In the long run, the happiest children are obedient children and the happiest parents are benevolent dictators. Obviously, one can’t exist without the other. So, for everyone’s sake, go for it! (p. 118-119)

While I (CA) agree with Romemond that unresolved disciplinary issues impede communications and expressions of affection between parent and child, and that resolving the issues removes the impediments, I maintain that the best way to resolve the issues is through enhanced trust of the parent through better communication, rather than through enhance trust of the parent’s authority through forceful displays of power and control.


In spite of the fact that children will do well under different systems of parenting (as long as the parents are strong, clear, consistent, and decisive), different approaches can have different effects on children, and can address different needs that children have. I think New School approaches are better suited to today’s complex society and to addressing the needs of today’s savvy, autonomous, well-connected, and oftentimes overdefiant kids who often appear to be on a mission to prove to their parents (and teachers) that they cannot–and will not–be controlled.

Depending on the child’s age and temperament, and the parents’ abilities, Old School methods might be effective in pressuring a child to obey. But New School methods provide a superior way of resolving disciplinary issues, improving communications and expressions of affection, and teaching children to care.


3 Steps to Parent-Child Harmony is my book  that describes in detail the differences between the Old School Parenting model and the New School Parenting model.  Please see these links if you are interested in more information or wish to purchase.

     Learn more.    Buy Now.   Table of Contents & Intro