Is the naughty step enough? What did your parents do?

Lotus-eater

DVardysShadow wrote: »

arguing that "the more poor children fill in worksheets on command (in an effort to raise their test scores), the further they fall behind affluent kids who are more likely to get lessons that help them understand ideas.

Isn't this an argument for public schools vs state schools.

PinkLipgloss

Kohn's studies are very interesting. I particularly enjoyed his book "Punished by Rewards".

I don't remember the exact details but one study was something along the lines of....

In a nursery the children were organised into 2 groups (in different rooms). The first group was encouraged to draw pictures with sparkly pens to get a reward. The second group was simply encouraged to draw with any pens they wanted, including the sparkly ones - no reward offered.

A week later the first group had no interest in the sparkly pens. The second group continued to use them.

Why? Because the sparkly pens were devalued by the first group - as they HAD to draw a picture with them to earn a reward. After all - they couldn't have been that great if they had to be encouraged with rewards into using them could they?

It totally makes sense. Even as an adult if my mum says "If you do X I'll reward you with Y" I automatically think "aarrrghhhh X!" I therefore cringe whenever I hear colleagues say to pupils "If you don't do X then you can't do Y with the rest of the class you can do maths/reading instead" because it automatically devalues maths and reading!

meritaten

lol - I used to love it when my teacher used 'sit quietly and read XYZ'! I adored reading! and she thought she was punishing me? it may have worked with SOME in the class - but not with others.
depends on the childs interests doesnt it?
bit like mum sending me to bed without supper - I didnt care that I was hungry - I just used the time to read anyway!

milliebear00001

Hmm, well, with the benefit of two very different children, and as a teacher, experience of managing the behaviour of a great many children..
I'd say there isn't really a magic solution to this one!

Some children are easy to manage from their earliest days - sunny, compliant, quiet and peaceable. Others are not! Some children respond well to naughty steps/reward charts/positive praise/removal/denial of privileges ad infinitum - unfortunately, others don't.

You need to find what works for you, and what works for the individual child.

I was once that complacent parent who thought that I had behaviour management 'sussed'. Then my second child came along...

What I now realise, is that managing behaviour is about responding to a constantly evolving entity - a child. What works for a two year old, won't necessarily work for an eight year old. What works for child x, won't work for child y.

meritaten

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Hmm, well, with the benefit of two very different children, and as a teacher, experience of managing the behaviour of a great many children..
I'd say there isn't really a magic solution to this one!

Some children are easy to manage from their earliest days - sunny, compliant, quiet and peaceable. Others are not! Some children respond well to naughty steps/reward charts/positive praise/removal/denial of privileges ad infinitum - unfortunately, others don't.

You need to find what works for you, and what works for the individual child.

I was once that complacent parent who thought that I had behaviour management 'sussed'. Then my second child came along...

What I now realise, is that managing behaviour is about responding to a constantly evolving entity - a child. What works for a two year old, won't necessarily work for an eight year old. What works for child x, won't work for child y.

What I just highlited in red - each child responds differently and you need to find what works for that child.

DVardysShadow

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Isn't this an argument for public schools vs state schools.

It is a corollary of Kohn;s position. He is arguing that targetting compliance is fruitless - which is relevant to the discussion here. I selected the quote because it is both interesting and it introduces criticism of the broader application of compliance.

In my education, compliance certainly featured - but it was subservient to the education itself. Sitting still was not an objective in its own right, it was a means to the objective of getting the education.

I fear that State Education and the country as a whole is descending into a miasma where compliance is the ultimate objective - independent schools are probably faring better, but it needn't be the case.

It takes something I have thought for a long time a bit further, I don't like the idea that the reaction to someone doing something wrong is punishment. I prefer to believe that it is better to decide what behaviour is required and attempt to find the best way of getting that result - punishment just be an option and possibly poor one quite often.

Now that could just devolve down to achieving compliance by any other means. On parenting

Kohn argues for an approach he calls "working with", as distinguished from "doing to". The latter is exemplified by punishments and rewards, and, more generally, a focus on behaviour rather than on the motives and values that underlie behaviour.

The challenge of Kohn is to instill in a child a set of values such that the need for intervention by punishment and reward is minimized.

An interesting area of possible application which comes up elsewhere on the forums form time to time is the behaviour of young adults still at home over spending or getting into debt. It seems to happen in 2 circumstances

• Poor family where there is no spare cash to give the child pocket money, but parent does struggle to provide treats
• Rich family where there is not only pocket money but also the child only has to ask to get more money

In both cases, the common feature is that the child has never learned that pocket money is finite and never had to develop a value system which could accommodate to a resource [pocket money] which could run out.

Now I might be totally wrong here, but I am thinking that generally unconditional but finite pocket money is probably an area where Kohn's ideas are most commonly worked out without thinking about it. Kohn's ideas are the clearest explanation to me of my strong gut feel here that taking away the adult child's debit card and therefore access to their bank account for their own earned money is only likely to compound the problems that person has handling their money.

OK, this may seem to have gone way off topic, but I think the ideas are so valuable for the discussion of the naughty step and the reward chart. And the problems arising on entry into adulthood from a lack of Kohn type upbringing on pocket money indicate that the approach is well worth thinking through.

ElegantlyWasted

My dad used to threaten me with going to a 'naughty children's home', where the children weren't allowed out of their rooms, I couldn't see my mum, etc. That usually made me behave, though I remember a few times where he dragged me down the stairs and made me pack a bag to go to said children's home. I must have been a total !!!!!! those days, I used to backchat apparently.

My mum used to send me to bed with no supper, though that had no real effect on me as i always believed i was fat, and wouldn't have eaten supper anyway. I think that helped to kick start the anorexia I developed a couple of years later, as food became something to fight over. I guess just, be careful when using food as a reward or punishment. I know I'm being extreme but I would hate for a child to feel like I did.

Children are individuals, and what works for one, won't work for another.

System

The only thing i remember as the occassional smack on the bum,having things taken away (like not going to the school disco cos i refused to eat my dinner one time) and being grounded. It worked! That said it only took one of "the look" from my parents and i'd be on my best behaviour (i should add they werent abusive and i wasn't scared of them! i just knew i'd be grounded etc)

amus

I was smacked often as a child, mostly across the head, sometimes on the legs. Sometimes it was a diciplinary measure, most of the time it was because of temper loss, which IMO is a big no no.

I was a rebellious teenager so didnt do me any favours.

I always find with DS1 the removal of something he likes to play with, or his after dinner biscuit works well, as these are things that actually bother him. In all fairness though DS1 has always been quite responsive to discipline.

Which is more than I can say for DS2, who is a nightmare! Hopefully when he is old enough for me to negotiate with it will be easier!

I suppose what Im saying is there is no one size fits all method, some children are simply harder to discipline than others! I think the key is finding out their 'weak' spot i.e. what really bothers them!

thefishdude

i am a expecting father and tbh i am fearing the worst as i have no experience to go on not even how i was treated as a child by my own parents because and they will confirm this i was like the perfect child lol sound like im being big headed but i think i was just making up fro my older sister who was the nightmare child lol basically i done what i was told when i was told was never hit never shouted at the only time i can ever remember being told off was when i went to a differen street to play on with out telling my parents soo that is justifiable apart from that have no bad memories. even when i was a teen i never fell out with them have never argued with my mum eve and only once with my dad but i was 24 lol i would happily do my mums shopping for her put some wasing on hang it out get in and fold when dry with out being asked.

so problem i have is i am kinda expecting my child to be like this as its only experience memories i have. i have this idea in my head that why would you not do what your parents tell you ? they are your parents!

so i could be in for a rude awakening lol and will be trying lots of techniques to find best. i do believe in being calm at all times so will just see.