To think that this mother is wrong?

[CharliePurple]

A 3 year old in nursery was biting and hitting other children and ended up being excluded. The mother says that the nursery shouldn't have excluded him because they should have understood that he was a boisterous and active boy and not a naughty one.

Is she right and he's not naughty or are the nursery right to have excluded him?

I'm not saying it's not fashionable psychology, but these things aren't set in stone either, are they?

And also, please bear in mind that I am not suggesting telling the child, "You are a very naughty boy!" Etc. I can see that this isn't helpful to the child. But between adults, saying "He or she is sometimes naughty" or "He or she was naughty today" - they are basic descriptive statements and I think people massive overplay this idea of 'labelling', really because they are trying to reject the idea that the behaviour is in any way their fault.

I think the exclusion of a 3 year old is a massive, massive failure.
On whose part very much depends on what has been going on.

If the nursery have been trying to work with the parents to modify the child's behaviour and the parents have refused to cooperate then the parents are clearly at fault.
If the nursery have been meh about the whole thing and have not been putting anything in place for this kid then they they are at fault.

It shouldn't take long to sort out a child with no other factors (SEND, emotional problems).

So its hard to tell without the whole story. Nurseries can do what they want really. If its not an school nursery then its not really and exclusion. Its more of a 'can you take your business elsewhere, we don't wish to have it anymore'

It's probably a combination of the child's behaviour and the parents' inability to work with the nursery to address the behaviour.

If it's a private nursery it's not really an exclusion in the usual sense as a private nursery can decide at any time that they don't want a child on their books. It's possible to 'exclude' a child because of the parent's behaviour. So that is possibly a bit misleading?

At what point do we switch from labelling the behaviour to labelling the person? People are called "bitches", "arseholes", etc, etc all the time.

Saying she was naughty today or is sometimes naughty is the same as saying the behaviour is naughty. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying naughty today, was naughty or sometimes naughty. That all fits in with not actually labelling the personality of the child as naughty but instead you are labelling the action at that time. Letting a child know that they made an active choice is important and it actually fits into the criteria for not labelling the child as naughty. You can allow a child to accept the consequences of their naughty actions or behaviour and you can point it out without labelling them as naughty.

Trifleorbust - If a child is persistently biting or hitting others then there is a reasonable chance there is something unusual going on. That unusual could be abuse or traumatic home life , very lax parenting or sn. Calling the behaviour naughty isn't going to help.

Honking: Sorry to be blunt but if it's lax parenting then that is naughty. I am not saying this is the child's fault - poor parenting is the fault of the adult. But it's the adult I am talking to, not the three year old.

No she's wrong the Nurserys I worked in were really good but the one thing they wouldn't put up with was biting!

That Mum will find that most Nurserys are the same now.A child was excluded from one of the Nurserys I worked in for biting and that Mum did not take it well but it did'nt change the Nurserys mind.

Jabuticaba: I still don't get what you mean by 'labelling'. If I have looked after a child for 6 months and their behaviour most days has matched up to the description of 'naughty', I am not going to shy away from saying that the child is 'naughty'. That doesn't mean they will always be naughty. What is 'labelling' in this context? Would you prefer that the repeated nature of the bheavier was ignored? Do you think it can't be part of the personality of the child?

Was this your child op?

I'm thinking the behaviour must have been quite extreme to warrant exclusion....I'm presuming they've worked with him and parents and it's still not the right setting for him.
I'm thinking its your DC Op?

Depends, a one off incident I don't think he should have been excluded.

Ongoing situation then yes, he should have.

Also depends on the severity, was blood being drawn? Were teeth marks/bruises being left? How should nursery explain those marks to parents particularly if it's happening to some children two or three times? How long should a nursery worker (and the other children) have to put up with being bitten for? If my son had been repeatedly bitten at nursery, especially if it had left marks, I would demand to know what was being done about it and if I didn't get a satisfactory answer then I'd have taken him elsewhere. Not only to protect him from being bitten but to protect him picking up on that behaviour.

Trifleorbust - I absolutely agree that if it is lax parenting, the child has to learn that they can't deal with things by biting and hitting. Using naughty with the parents won't be a problem but it does sometimes end up being used with the child as well and I think personally it is not a good word to use with them.

Honking: Agreed, particularly with very young children.

Trifle Only skimmed so sorry if this has already been explained and I've missed it.

You're right, it is a semantic distinction between the behaviour or the child being labelled as naughty but it makes a big difference to how people (adults) interact with the child and manage the behaviour going forward.

If you call the behaviour naughty then it suggests the child can be taught to make better choices and better behaviour options. It's presumed that the child just hasn't learnt differently.

Labelling the child as naughty conveys the idea that it is part of their 'core personality' and just the way they are. Much in the way that they are blonde or brown eyed or whatever. It implies that it is a fixed and immoveable trait. The problem with this is that people then expect poor behaviour from the child, they are more likely to be looking to that child for poor behaviour and so 'see' it when they might not see it in others (less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt).

Tbh, we tend to avoid labelling the behaviour as 'naughty' too. Well I do. There is no doubt that some behaviour is 'unacceptable' because, even where a child has SN, it's not 'acceptable' that another child might be scared or hurt. And that means that we are more likely to look for an alternative explanation - undiagnosed SN, problems at home, low self esteem...

It's not actually about whether the child ever hears the words "you naughty boy" or not. It really is the attitude/opinion/belief held by the adults around them that is important. So yes, adults talking to each other and describing the child as 'naughty' is very much a problem.

In a nutshell, it's about the adults' belief about the child's capacity for change.

ohtheholidays - A nursery that automatically excludes for biting is on dodgy ground and ofsted would not be happy with it.

Dance: I think there is a lot of assumption there. When I say a child is 'naughty' I am categorically not saying 'and this is the way they are, there is nothing we can do about it' (like a genetic trait). I am saying the direct opposite: 'This child's behaviour needs to change - what can be done?' The issue with the word, therefore, seems to come from a misunderstanding of what everyone is saying when they use it.

And frankly I think the exact same poor logic could be applied to a word like 'unacceptable'. Am I calling the child unacceptable? Of course not. I am saying that their behaviour, currently, is unacceptable. And yes, sometimes this is part of their personality. It still needs to be dealt with.

Trifle The thing is you might not be categorically saying those things but many people do.

I have heard some utterly appalling things said about children displaying 'unacceptable' behaviours. There are a lot of people in nurseries and schools who come into contact with children: SLT, class teachers, supply teachers, support staff, lunchtime supervisers... and, however highly educated, not all of them have a background in psychology and many don't have any understanding of child development or psychology (and this applies at any level).

I am frequently shocked that professionals and non professionals working don't understand that 'bad behaviour' in children with ASC is NOT a choice, or what attachment disorders or grief/bereavement looks like in children etc. etc.

The label distinction isn't for the benefit of people who understand that there can be change. It's for all the people who stand in schools saying things like, "there's something wrong with him"; "X is a horrible child and I don't often say that. Bad throughout" and the people who automatically punish a certain child just because they happen to be within sneezing distance of trouble, although they might have had nothing to do with it, or the people who will blame a child who is actually in need of help/support because they have "a bit of a reputation".

That's why 'unacceptable' works so well though. You would never say a child was unacceptable, but can recognise that the behaviour is.

Oh and I completely agree it needs to be dealt with and managed both for the future of the child with poor behaviour and those on the receiving end of it.

I get what you are saying, Dance, but likewise I am not really talking about people who recognise the nuances of your post. I am talking about people who genuinely don't believe a child can ever be naughty, and who reject the idea that the child needs to understand that their behaviour is unacceptable, or that their own parenting might actually be at fault. People who use the distinction between 'naughty child' and 'naughty behaviour' as an excuse, basically. Equally, there are a great many people who will argue that naughty behaviour must equate to ASC or SN, rather than accepting the possibility that it can be a much simpler matter or poor boundaries leading to naughtiness. I would say this is common sense.

Some people need to have it made very explicitly clear to them that this is not a child who needs endlessly punishing. That it is not acceptable to speak to/treat them without respect. That they do deserve to be rewarded for good attendance or good work, just like anyone else. And that if they end up on the receiving end of someone else's poor behaviour, it is not them getting their just deserts.

That is why it's important.

Not going to argue with that last post.

Totally agree with that!

I don't really understand, Dance - not sure where 'endless punishment' comes into this?

I was speaking more from my own observations, rather than commenting on the child in the OP specifically.

Fair enough. And of course I agree - all children need praise. When they behave well and try hard, they should get it.