The Potato Principle

Character training is not a simple process. To the contrary, the moral education of children in today’s social environment comes with many more diverse challenges than in theParents attracted to the Growing Families curricula tend to be cognizant of the important role that character training plays in a child’s development. These are parents who believe in the priority of moral education for their children, and view charClosely tied to suppressing the waywardness in children is the Potato Principle—a concept shared by ministry associates, Don and Karen Kurtz. The Potato Principle was derived from a real mealtime experience.  Here’s how the name came about.

While dining out one evening, Don ordered a baked potato with his meal. As he was enjoying it, he noticed a small dark spot just under the surface. Karen suggested he ask for a fresh potato. However, Don looked at the potato and said, “Ninety-nine percent of it is fine; it tastes great and I can work around the small bad spot.” A conversation ensued, and that is when the Potato Principle was born.

Abraham Maslow once commented, “He that is good with a hammer tends to see everything as a nail.” This truth has some measurable connection to this principle. Certainly, there are seasons in parenting when it seems the only behaviors standing out are the bad spots. However, the Potato Principle speaks of the Mom or Dad who is fixated on the bad, at the expense of the good. The bad spot may represent 2% or 50% of the child’s behavior, but it receives 100% of the parent’s attention.

The Potato Principle warns parents not to fixate solely on the bad spots, because in time, the child’s “good” is no longer appreciated or seen. Parents then begin to measure their child’s goodness by the absence of bad. Like the potato, one is only good if there are no bad spots.

Sadly, the message children hear is much different then what the parent is hoping to communicate. Like a potato with a bad spot, children hear, “If I’m not perfect, I’m not acceptable.” This message not only undermines any incentive to do good (because it will never be good enough for Mom or Dad), but also does long-term harm to the relationship, for it is not one based on love and respect, but performance.

We recognize the breadth of our audience and know there are those within that number who experienced the sting of this precept in their own childhood. They had a Mom or Dad who could always find something that was not perfect (perhaps an academic task that could have been improved). Their excellence as a child was never excellent enough.

Yet, at the other end of the spectrum are those parents who only look at the good, and are all too willing to ignore any obvious blemish. Parents do not have to toss out the whole potato because of one or two bad spots, but nor should those spots be ignored. When left unattended, “bad spots” have a way of corrupting all that is good. For the sake of your children, we hope the Potato Principle will help guide you to a healthy balance guided by this thought: Children should be trained to moral excellence not moral perfection.acter training as a way of life and not simply window dressing added to a child’s personality. They desire to understand how to instill honesty, empathy, compassion, kindness, gentleness, respect, honor, and self-control in their children and find their answers in the “whole-child” approach to parenting shared by the Ezzos.

One of the great misconceptions relating to moral education is the belief that it is an isolated category of training, and as such, has little influence on the other categories of development. That is a very misguided assumption. To the contrary, instilling virtues, values, and behavioral expectations into children actually sets in place a critical cornerstone on which the “whole child” is built.

Parenting the “Whole-Child” reflects a child-rearing approach that considers the natural capacities of children as the primary targets of parenting. It is the counterweight to, on one hand, the unbalanced, child-centered, laissez-faire approach that elevates a child’s happiness over morality, and, on the other hand, the strictness of the authoritarian approach that regulates behavior often at the expense of a child’s developing emotions.

Derived from Mark 12:30, the “whole child” reference reflects a training perspective that considers the natural capacities of children as the primary targets of training. Here Jesus touches on a substantive truth of childhood development when describing how Christ Followers are to love God:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength.

o    The Heart represents man’s moral capacity. The duty of parents is to help their child internalize virtues that reflect God’s character.
o    The Soul represents our emotional capacity (the seat of our consciousness). The duty of parents is to nurture their child’s emotional well-being. Parents help their children establish internal controls over both positive and negative emotions.
o    The Mind represents man’s intellectual capacity. The duty of parents is to stimulate their child’s intellectual competency. Parents educate their children in basic skills, logic, and useful knowledge.
o    Strength represents our physical capacities. The duty of parents is to nurture and provide for their children’s physical growth and well-being, including the development their children’s skills, giftedness and talents.

Although each capacity is in need of specific training, developmental evidence strongly suggests that only moral training has multiple corollary benefits that actually serve the other three capacities, and help bring them to maturity. Take, for example, the corollary impact moral training can have on a child’s cognitive ability—the ability to process information, think and reason well, and to be a problem solver.

In order for children to function at their highest potential, they need to acquire highly-developed habits of learning, which include foundational skills, such as sitting, focusing, concentrating, paying attention and persevering. Not surprisingly, these specific skills are embedded in the moral training process and become attributes that over time, are used in the service of the other three capacities. They are habits of moral logic easily transferred to the academic and skill side of a child’s developing mind.

However, the process does not work in reverse. Playing with blocks, putting puzzles together, and matching colors are important learning activities. Yet, these activities have value only to the extent that they are part of the learning process. Learning to count from one to ten, or picking out colors from a chart will not make your preschooler kinder, more self-controlled, or easier to manage. This realm of education has value, but the value is limited to the arena of knowledge and facts. It does not transfer to behavior.

In contrast, moral training not only influences behavior, but all aspects of a child’s expanding world of knowledge and subsequently, life itself. The mind, the emotions, talents and skills are all impacted by the quality and quantity of a Mom and Dad’s moral investment. past generations, especially for those who embrace the virtues and values contained within Christianity.

There are motivational challenges. Why should parents diligently train their children to be kind, considerate and caring when so many parents are letting these virtues slip by? There are peer pressure challenges. How should parents respond to friends and relatives who feel “uncomfortable” around children whose “good” and “consistent” behavior challenges the status quo of their own parenting?

 There are moral inconsistencies within Christianity to deal with—not an inconsistency in acknowledging common virtues, but rather an inconsistency when it comes to application. Clearly not everyone in the Christian community shares a like-minded commitment when it comes to moral training of their children.

The mechanics of moral education also present challenges. How do mothers and fathers actually teach moral truth? How can they make virtues and values meaningful to children? And once taught, how do children acquire the moral initiative needed to follow through on their beliefs? There are the cultural challenges. Parents must stay vigilant of the many moral inconsistencies confronting children each day. Hollywood serves up a culture of death, network TV exploits their innocence, and the Internet is sophisticated enough to identify their secret desires and prey on their weaknesses.

Yet, in the end, the refinement of a child’s character is largely the product of Mom and Dad’s direct influence. Unless that influence is willfully surrendered to outside forces or sacrificed to life’s busy demands, children will reflect the moral lessons of their home life. Whatever character qualities are tossed aside or devalued at home will be devalued by the child. It is a simple fact of parenthood—if something is not important to Mom and Dad, it will not spontaneously become important to the child.

Yes, moral education is complex and challenging, and society continues to add more challenges to the mix. Yet, we are persuaded by the goodness of God that He has not left us without hope or a way to address the challenges. By intent or neglect, parents are still the greatest influence on their children’s outcomes, and raising morally-sensitive children, whose conduct brings life to the moment, is not a matter of chance, but of intentional parenting. It is not for the faint-hearted, but for those who persevere every day, even in this age of moral diversity.