To be cross with our childminder?

[ranging]

Name changed.

DD has been going to the same childminder since she was 8 months and she is now 2.5. She absolutely loves it there and she's very kind and friendly, I get lots of crafts home that DD does and they go out and do a lot.

DD is going through a challenging phase, not doing as she's told, very stubborn, sometimes hitting and biting.

When I picked her up on Friday, the childminder said that she had taken her shoes and socks off in the car and was refusing to put them back on, so she took her out the car and put him on the (wet and muddy) ground in her bare feet and told her basically that's what you get for not putting your shoes on. She apparently got upset by this and then finally allowed her to put her shoes back on.

I was a bit taken aback by this, AIBU to tell her I am not happy about this at all? I'm not sure if this is an ok tactic to use with a toddler but I never would and don't want anyone else to treat her like that either.

We often walk about in bare feet - in the garden, at the park, at the beach, in mud and leaves. It does no harm and we all enjoy the freedom of not wearing shoes sometimes. I went barefoot for weeks on end as a child. I don't make my children march through broken glass, syringes and dog shit, calm down.

I don’t know what this means. Lifting them willingly onto the toilet: fine. Lifting them out of the car to stand in mud with no shoes on: not fine. The onus here isn’t on the child, it’s on the adult.

Yeah don't worry.

It's become very clear from your posts that despite your continued references to punishment and cognitive development you actually know bugger all about either and so of course you donn'y understand this.

It's easy to criticise what you don't understand.

That was to @CervixHaver

@WaltzingBetty

They really don’t. The OP’s kid could do exactly the same tomorrow. She doesn’t have the development yet to understand why she’s being punished for something that makes perfect sense, to her very little, not-yet-developed-properly brain.

You keep mentioning punishment -what do you mean by this? I suspect from your application if the term you aren't applying it according to learning theory

Also you don't expect two year olds to be able to respond to operant conditioning techniques (they absolutely can, even insects can learn using applied learning theory) but do expect them to be able to distinguish whether lifting is forceful or not depending on the valuation of their caregivers motivation for doing so.

Do you not think that is a more cognitively sophisticated task than simple operant learning?

I suspect from your application if the term you aren't applying it according to learning theory

I can’t understand this at all.

Also you don't expect two year olds to be able to respond to operant conditioning techniques (they absolutely can, even insects can learn using applied learning theory) but do expect them to be able to distinguish whether lifting is forceful or not depending on the valuation of their caregivers motivation for doing so.

Again: it’s the adult who lifts the child. It’s the adult who decides if it’s a punishment or not.

@JustLyra

That’s not a natural consequence though - she was lifted out of the car. If she’d taken her shoes off at the park and ran through mud and didn’t like it, that’s learning. Being punished for not having your shoes on won’t make her learn faster.

It absolutely is natural consequences. She was lifted out the car because small children are always lifted out of cars.

She's learned that she doesn't like her feet on the ground without shoes. Next time she's coming out the car she'll want her shoes on.

Why would a NT 2.5 year old need lifted out of a car? Unbuckled, definitely, but lifted? Why?

Again; it’s on the adult.

Just on the off-chance you're interested in knowing more:
This is not how learning works. Learning is about the learner and their perception of what is punishing or rewarding.

The child's experience of being lifted is the same in both situations. So the adult's motivation is irrelevant. Either the child perceives lifting as a punishment (as you have stated) or they don't.
So it's either a punishment to lift them or it's not.

You can't expect a two year old to evaluate the adult's motivation and then decide if they feel punished or not

[quote Hardbackwriter]@Pumperthepumper I'm really confused about how much you seem to be underestimating the cognitive ability of a 2.5 year old - you're talking as if it's a 12 month old with your insistence that they couldn't possibly learn anything from this. Of course most 2.5 year olds could see the cause/consequence here. But if you think they couldn't I can't imagine why you're suggesting reasoning with them?[/quote]
Because a 2.5 year old is much more likely to think ‘oh, a game!’ and put their shoes on, over ‘now I’m on the ground and unhappy, won’t do that again’ - they still don’t understand why they have to put their shoes on because you said so, but one gets it done with no punishment.

Again: it’s the adult who lifts the child. It’s the adult who decides if it’s a punishment or not.

Nope
Fundamental misunderstanding of learning.

Punishment only works if the learner perceives it as punishing

If it the adult that perceived it as punishing but the child couldn't care less then it's not going to affect their behaviour is it?

That's basic logic

Well the OP could certainly find 1:1 childcare with a Nanny that will do things the way she wants. But let's not suggest the CM isn't doing a good job because the OP has different expectations. And when the child gets to school and those same expectations aren't being met maybe she can employ a governess

@WaltzingBetty

I don’t know what this means. Lifting them willingly onto the toilet: fine. Lifting them out of the car to stand in mud with no shoes on: not fine. The onus here isn’t on the child, it’s on the adult.

Yeah don't worry.

It's become very clear from your posts that despite your continued references to punishment and cognitive development you actually know bugger all about either and so of course you donn'y understand this.

It's easy to criticise what you don't understand.

You’re wrong, of course, but you know that. That’s why you can’t argue, and resort to insults. I’m not dim, I’m someone who understands the limits of a very small child. Insisting on punishing them changes nothing.

What are you basing these sweeping statements of what a 2.5 year old can and can't understand on, @Pumperthepumper? Is it just your own children, or some sort of professional experience? Because I only have my own child to draw on, but I don't recognise what you seem to be insisting is universal.

Why would a NT 2.5 year old need lifted out of a car? Unbuckled, definitely, but lifted? Why?

Because unless you have a particularly low car the combo of car, seat and car seat can make it a high drop to the pavement/road.

Especially if they have an awkward car seat to get out of.

So a 2.5 year old can easily understand a game, but can't understand "I don't like that"

Aye, ok then.

@WaltzingBetty

Again; it’s on the adult.

Just on the off-chance you're interested in knowing more:
This is not how learning works. Learning is about the learner and their perception of what is punishing or rewarding.

The child's experience of being lifted is the same in both situations. So the adult's motivation is irrelevant. Either the child perceives lifting as a punishment (as you have stated) or they don't.
So it's either a punishment to lift them or it's not.

You can't expect a two year old to evaluate the adult's motivation and then decide if they feel punished or not

You’re absolutely wrong. A child knows when they’re being lifted against their will, they know if they need lifted onto a toilet for their needs. I can’t believe you don’t know the difference. The onus is on the adult to not use that physical advantage (I can lift you and you can’t do anything about it) against the child. This is very, very basic child protection.

You’re wrong, of course, but you know that. That’s why you can’t argue, and resort to insults. I’m not dim, I’m someone who understands the limits of a very small child. Insisting on punishing them changes nothing.

Then please explain how a 2 year old child can evaluate an adult's motivation behind the same action in different contexts and conclude that in one situation it is punishing and in one it isn't

You’re absolutely wrong. A child knows when they’re being lifted against their will, they know if they need lifted onto a toilet for their needs. I can’t believe you don’t know the difference. The onus is on the adult to not use that physical advantage (I can lift you and you can’t do anything about it) against the child. This is very, very basic child protection.

Apparently me, BF Skinner and 50 years of science.

@Hardbackwriter

What are you basing these sweeping statements of what a 2.5 year old can and can't understand on, *@Pumperthepumper*? Is it just your own children, or some sort of professional experience? Because I only have my own child to draw on, but I don't recognise what you seem to be insisting is universal.

Both.

@JustLyra

So a 2.5 year old can easily understand a game, but can't understand "I don't like that"

Aye, ok then.

I don’t know what this means.

I don’t know what this means. Lifting them willingly onto the toilet: fine. Lifting them out of the car to stand in mud with no shoes on: not fine. The onus here isn’t on the child, it’s on the adult.

I’m confused @Pumperthepumper you seem to think a 2.5 year old doesn’t have the cognitive ability to understand natural consequences but they can understand the difference between being lifted onto a toilet or out of a car with no shoes on, or to follow your reasoning can differentiate between being lifted out of a car with no shoes on to be put on wet grass as opposed to every other time they are lifted out of a car as a 2.5 year old is incapable of getting out themselves.

@WaltzingBetty

You’re wrong, of course, but you know that. That’s why you can’t argue, and resort to insults. I’m not dim, I’m someone who understands the limits of a very small child. Insisting on punishing them changes nothing.

Then please explain how a 2 year old child can evaluate an adult's motivation behind the same action in different contexts and conclude that in one situation it is punishing and in one it isn't

What?

@WaltzingBetty

You’re absolutely wrong. A child knows when they’re being lifted against their will, they know if they need lifted onto a toilet for their needs. I can’t believe you don’t know the difference. The onus is on the adult to not use that physical advantage (I can lift you and you can’t do anything about it) against the child. This is very, very basic child protection.

Apparently me, BF Skinner and 50 years of science.

What?

Well, I think it would be fine to do this as a parent but I'm surprised the childminder has the guts to do it in this day and age where disciplining children does not appear to be the done thing in childcare settings. Having said that, it's not cruel behaviour, didn't cause harm and sounds like a good lesson learned! Plus she told you about it....

@TruffleShuffles

I don’t know what this means. Lifting them willingly onto the toilet: fine. Lifting them out of the car to stand in mud with no shoes on: not fine. The onus here isn’t on the child, it’s on the adult.

I’m confused @Pumperthepumper you seem to think a 2.5 year old doesn’t have the cognitive ability to understand natural consequences but they can understand the difference between being lifted onto a toilet or out of a car with no shoes on, or to follow your reasoning can differentiate between being lifted out of a car with no shoes on to be put on wet grass as opposed to every other time they are lifted out of a car as a 2.5 year old is incapable of getting out themselves.

Yes, they can tell the difference between being lifted out of the car (happy) and being lifted out of the car and put on the mud with no shoes on (sad). They can’t tell the difference between what makes the happy thing sad - so the OP’s 2.5 year old could well do the same thing tomorrow with no understanding of ‘no shoes equals standing on the mud barefoot’

What?

I love that you have absolutely no idea about learning, child development or cognition and have admitted that but are still convinced you're right and have nothing to learn

Ignorance really is (arrogant) bliss

Yes, they can tell the difference between being lifted out of the car (happy) and being lifted out of the car and put on the mud with no shoes on (sad). They can’t tell the difference between what makes the happy thing sad - so the OP’s 2.5 year old could well do the same thing tomorrow with no understanding of ‘no shoes equals standing on the mud barefoot’

You're very definitive for someone with no actual knowledge of child cognition or learning.