to think that 'the naughty step' technique totally sucks?

[PipPipPip]

Making kids sit on a naughty step seems mean to me! Plus it also seems to reward the kid's bad behaviour with a whole load of attention.

Am I being unreasonable to think it just, basically, sucks?

YABU
It is a consequence that DS doesn't like but which causes no harm (unlike a smack or yelling for example)
It stops the behaviour in its tracks
DS is usually genuinely contrite/calmed at the end of it.

As super nanny says you have to follow the technique properly, if you do it half assed or angrily it does nothing.

I have no problem with the word naughty and DS understands naughty behaviour.

Am I being unreasonable to think there are other alternatives? Like, uh, being really nice to your kid and explaining things to them? And kind of just ignoring bad behaviour and lavishly praising good behaviour? Am I totally bonkers???

Yeah and that works when you have a lovely compliant little toddler. When they become wilful pre schoolers it is a different matter. When your kid is flinging their toys around the room, or spitting on the floor, or smacking you, do you suggest just ignoring it? Especially when they know full well they are being naughty? Not in my house!

If used sparingly for really bad behaviour after several warnings we found it helped to calm an escalating situation where all else has failed.

Being removed from contact with the rest of the family for a few minutes (1 minute for each child year of age) does the trick. If it is explained why they are going to the step and that they can come back when they calm down we found it worked.

Yes he only has it a couple of times a week if that. Can usually distract/tell off for naughty behaviour and he stops it. Occasionally even the nicest child will get a demon in them and push you to the limit in which case naughty step is much better, kinder and more effective than losing your temper.

People learn best from having consequences to their actions. A very young child generally lacks the empathy required to put themselves into another person's position, to consider the impact of their actions on someone else, to not do something that they want to do because of how it will affect someone else.

That's too complex for a new mind! No. They work on see toy - want toy - bash you - got toy

They require an association to override that, something they can understand. see toy - want toy - bash you - sit on step

You work on teaching them to consider others. But it's a long process. you can't rely on them being able to do that at 2 yrs old, 3 yrs old, hell, when they get to 4 it's still hit and miss! You need to make them behave nicely to others before they understand why they should behave nicely to others!

You can sit a 2 yr old down and explain that they hurt someone and made them sad until you're blue in the face, they'll still bash that child over the head next time they want that Big Yellow Teapot, because they won't remember to consider the other person's feelings, they won't go oh, I really want to play with that, but I remember last week I hit thomas and mum sat down with me and explained that I had made him cry. That was sad. If I do that again, he will be sad again. It's important to me that I don't make Thomas sad, so I won't take the teapot, I'll go play with this train instead.

But they WILL think hitting = step (or whatever)

And then, of course, there is the point that for most people of all ages, what modifies their behaviour is more to do with what's likely to happen to them than any genuine concern for the other person and desire to put the other person's needs or wishes before their own. We don't like to admit that, but I think it's true.

eg - I say I don't steal because it's morally wrong. This may also be true, but I don't steal because I don't want to go to prison! If that was assuredly not a consequence, I'd probably have a brand new car right now

Someone is rude to me in the supermarket. I don't punch them in the face. I say this is because I am opposed to violence/refuse to sink to their level. In reality, it's just as likely to be because I don't want a punch back, or I don't want to get arrested.

Works for me and it is called the naughty step here. Though the count down method means its not used all that often.

It doesn't work for all kids. You need to be open to taking the approach that works for you and for your child. Trying to find something that would work, I turned to a book with the worst possible title EVER. "Honey We Ruined The Kids". Ick. But the contents aren't awful. It was as if the author had met my son.

So read up on a few different approaches and go with what you feel is right for you and your child.

"Like, uh, being really nice to your kid and explaining things to them?"

LOL! Come back in a few years' time when you've tried that one for real. :) Being 'really nice and explaining things' to a screaming, thrashing, purple-faced toddler is about as effective as asking an over-excited Alsatian would they mind sitting down quietly and not barking....

It depends very much on the child. Some children are naturally compliant and will give in to any good reason provided by a loving parent.

Other children just want to run the show even if the result is less beneficial to them because getting their own way is the most important thing to them. I was such a child. I literally didn't care if my way got me into trouble; the important thing was that I got my way. My mother naturally couldn't always let this happen (for the sake of safety for one thing), and when she didn't, I kicked off. Literally.

Your theory only works on the assumption that you have a child who wants to please other people: I didn't care much about that when I was little. Praising me lavishly would not have compensated me for not getting my own way.

Dd was a biter, amongst other thing. Explaining lovingly why biting wasn't very nice to other people didn't help because she wanted to bite more than she wanted other people to be happy. She needed removing from the scene, and when she was removed she kicked off.

Ds otoh and one of my brothers were naturally compliant children, who cared very much about pleasing the people around them. If my mother and I had only had those two, we would have believed in our superior non-punitive methods. My mother was unwise enough to have four children, all widely varying in temperament. She learned a lot.

But as MoreBeta says, I think any method of punishment should be used sparingly. If you get your big guns out at the slightest hint of dissent you will lose credibility.

As others have said, it can be effective, in our house it works as a removal of attention and time to calm down. I do feel that 18 months is too young, distraction works better at this age.

The whole point of it is that the child receives NO attention.

It worked for us over the age of 2 and a half.

I agree 18 months is too young. I wouldn't use time out for a child under 2, possibly older depending on the child.

Ignore the bad and praise the good,
That's brilliant
Would work for a very compliant child but what about those that aren't? They grow up thinking that hitting, pushing rtc to get what you want is ok. All because they have no concept of 'no, that behaviour is unacceptable' I think that sort of pandering attitude is partly responsible for the issues we have amongst young people today

I think my DS is too young for the naughty step/time out spot/ reflection area/whatever. He's 2.4, but to be honest I don't like the whole idea of it anyway. If he's doing something I don't want him to do then I tend to distract him, I tell him that I don't like the behaviour and we do something else instead.
The thing with the naughty step is that it's a double punishment, at this young age. If DS is doing something that I ask him to stop doing, and he wants to carry on - then stopping him doing it is 'punishment' because I've 'won', if you like. I don't see why he should then be excluded for an arbitrary period of time to pick his nose think about what he's done.
He's not going to understand why certain behaviours aren't ok by being excluded.
I certainly can't imagine ever battling with him for an hour, just to show him who's boss!
He is still young though, and relatively well behaved, so maybe if he was older and more challenging then I'd try anything!

I agree that it totally depends on the child and on why they're behaving the way they are. My friend's daughter is also 2.4 and I think time out would be ideal for her. She can speak fluently in full sentences and understands pretty much anything you tell her. She bites and slaps for attention, it's blatantly obvious. Removing her from the situation and denying her attention for this behaviour would stop it fairly fast. As it stands her mother just feebly says "Don't do that!" and often picks her up and ends up cuddling her. So in her mind biting/slapping = cuddle. It's all wrong and now people are actively avoiding her and her mother because they're sick of their children being bitten and slapped. I'm thinking of ending the friendship because I'm so tired of it. In that situation the child's behaviour is seriously detrimental and even if time out would be difficult to implement, it's better than the poor child being ostracised permanently.

Agree with you, Cailin, that time out would probably be a good idea for your friend's dd, but don't be too sure that it would stop the behaviour "pretty fast" (or consequently that any child who still has bad behaviour has never been disciplined).

It took several years of consistent discipline/removal from scene to stop my dd. It was worth it- not least to reassure the other children- and I am sure it had an effect on dd, but it was a longterm project. When you have a strong-willed child, pretty well anything you do will be a longterm project. They will always want to come back to test you just once more.

It sounds like that child may need more positive attention then? I'd try praising her for not biting, but if she did bite I think I'd need to do something, if only to show the 'victim' that there was some justice!
That does sound like a grim situation though, for everyone concerned.

18 months is too young for a naughty step but i do think it's not too young for a quiet place and a calm down especially if the problem has arisen for the hundreds of quite sane reasons kids play up. e.g hungry, tired, over stimulated.

I always thought the whole point of a naughty step was to have the quiet time to think and calm down follwed by a discussion about what happened, why and how DD makes sure not to do it again (thinking back to the time she said sorry but that she wouldn't promise not to do it again). Otherwise it doesn't really serve a purpose.

we use the step very occasionally and only for hurting other people or herself

the rest of the time she's quite good at understanding and modifying behaviour if we're not happy with her and the threatened removal of priveledges/treats works so much better.

Thing is though cory she isn't strong willed. She is just desperate for boundaries. I've told her off a few times for trying to hurt my DS and as a result she listens to me a lot more than she listens to her mother. I just have to look at her and she stops what she's doing. She is a sweet lovely child but her home life is a bit chaotic to say the least and her mother is a great person who just isn't consistent with discipline. It's a shame but I am reluctant to talk to the mum as I'm don't think it'll help much.

Do you know that she is not strong willed simply because she listens more to an outsider than her mother? I did the same, simply because the power game against my mother was the one that mattered. I couldn't be bothered to put up the same fight against some stranger: the important thing was to show my own family who was in charge.

Most strong willed children I know are well behaved when away from the people they care about. In fact, that goes for most children I have ever met, whether strong willed or not. You show your worst behaviour to the person you trust or rely on, you fight against the person who can run your life, not against people that don't matter.

True cory. She just doesn't really strike me as a strong willed child. Once she is given direct instructions, even by her mother, she is very compliant. It's only when she's not getting the attention she wants that she starts playing up and really sometimes I can't blame her. Her mother can go a whole hour without saying two words to her. I understand her mother is very very tired (she has another young baby) but I can also understand that the little girl feels ignored. I think as sparta says she needs a lot more positive attention, a lot of guidance on how to behave in social situation and then some time out for times when she gets worked up.

Jinsei my parents were like yours, they didn't believe in punishment - just lots of explaining. I think it may have only been possible because I'm an only child.

ErikNorseman I'm not suggesting we ignore bad behaviour, just wondering if there are alternatives to the 'naughty step' method. Lots of people have given interesting, useful responses!

CogitoErgoSometimes LoL about the Alsatian dog. I know I'm being naive!

Mamababa You've totally misunderstood me! I'm keen to teach my child about what kinds of behaviour are unacceptable, I'm just interested in the methods.

CailinDana Whoa, good point about feebly saying 'don't do that' then ending up with a cuddle. I can see how that reinforces all the wrong ideas. Hmmm.

18months is too young. I'm still trying to get my nearly 3yr old to understand the consequences of his actions so he can be sorry about it. He just isn't. The best thing to do is model the behaviour you want, tell/show the child what to do instead.

Ds was throwing stones across the garden, he wasn't going to show any remorse about it so I told him to throw a nice soft ball instead. He didn't understand why I was so cross about throwing stones because he was enjoying it so much but then totally understood that balls are for throwing and stones are for the bugs in the garden.