The naughty-step "will raise a generation of disturbed children"

[10miles]

This is from my Dad. He feels, very strongly, that a time out punishment system is effectively telling DC that they're so awful you can't bear to have them near you and will lead to emotional problems and poor family relationships.

My parents were very loving, but also very firm with us. We were smacked when we needed disciplining, but never ever sent to our rooms/the step. Dad feels a short sharp smack that is quickly forgotten is far kinder than banishment. What do you think. (He is not in anyway advocating hard physical punishment, this was a slap of the wrist, legs or bottom depending on age, never leaving a mark)

I'm totally in favour of time out moogalicious, in the right circumstances.

Give them a break if they've been grumpy and shouty. Yes. Give them a break if they've just bitten their sibling? No.

Sorry x post cailin. I see we agree!

Yup :)

I much preferred a quick slap to the long lectures DDad used when I was older.

I like my own company, so sending me to my room wasn't a punishment.

Withdrawal of privileges is just daft for small children, they focus all their attention on what's been removed and totally forget why.

I don't do modern parenting my 2 get told off, shouted at if they don't listen and a quick slap if they really push it.

And lots of love and hugs and silliness when they don't.

DD2 used to get sent to her room until she wanted to be nice, because she likes the world to revolve around her. When it can't she just has to go away and return when she's feeling more tolerant of family life.

Never used the naughty step simply because it's an open plan house. The offending child just watches TV or pulls faces at it's sibling through the banister.

They are 11 and 14 and we are very lucky they are generally not much trouble.
Neither is rebellious by nature (unlike their Mother) so generally keep out of trouble at school.
DD2 makes up for being utterly perfect at school with a bit of stropping at home (which is best ignored).
DD1 is her bouncy eccentric self at all times and in all places, as long as you don't expect her to change she's easy.

OP to be fair to your Dad I think he's probably thinking of a situation where are parent says "Get out of my sight!" or worse to a child and then sends them to their room for ages. That is damaging IMO and it does tell a child that they're a pain to be around and not wanted. That's not what time out is though.

The phrase "naughty step" will never be uttered in my house.

I think that's where he's coming from Cailin, but what's got him really upset at atm is a weekend spent with my sister who has 2 DSs age 4 & 5 yo who have been sent to the step a dozen times between them over the weekend. Always calmly and with an apology from the child and a cuddle from mum afterwards. He just feels it's too frequent, isn't working (as it has to be used so much) and doesn't like to see the children so upset/isolated.

This is coming from the vantage point of no children yet (so of course I still know EVERYTHING) but I prefer the naughty step, although I agree with AndiMac about not labelling it 'naughty step'. I think making sure you are telling the child clearly (and calmly) that it?s their BEHAVIOUR that?s the issue, not THEM is vital.

My parents never disciplined us much as kids - a few slaps and smacks but that simply taught us to be sneaky and how to effectively shift blame around the siblings (we sound awful!) and never curtailed bad behaviour. My mum has used the SuperNanny send-to-the-bedroom-for-a-minute-per-year on my youngest brother (since he was 15) and it has actually been increadably effective, even on a late teenager. The difference between behaviour in my older and younger brothers is striking and a LOT is due to the differences in discipline.

I don?t think that children would feel isolated by step or room punishment, more than they should ? a child does need to know that their behaviour is unacceptable (@AndiMac again) and they do need to feel the consequences of it or they will continue to be isolated through their behaviour into adult life and that is more damaging than sending them to a step to cool off and think about their actions.

I dislike smacking as a punishment - ?We don?t smack? doesn?t work very well when the child can just (as they will) answer with ?Well you do?. It?s not a route I would like to go down with children as they get older as well ? hitting smaller siblings to get them to do what you want is something I?ve seen often in families and it never works out well! Also, as Serenity said, it?s easy to resent parents for smacking out of frustration, and children pick that up. Then again, the same can be said for badly done naughty step - shouting and getting more and more angry - when you start placing concurrent sentences on a child and they end up there for an hour, it gets to the ineffective and isolationist stage, and becomes about revenge more than teaching children about the consequences of their behaviour.

Wow that wound up long! Salient details - time out is good if you make it about the behaviour not the child and don't lose it! And think would you want your DC at 12 smacking their 6yo sister cos she interupted them?

I agree that the focus should be on the behaviour rather than the child London. I also think punishments should be given as calmly as humanly possible, without any emotional language or angry blaming. It's easy to get worked up at times but I think it's important to try to rein that in, as there is a danger of overdoing it and really scaring or upsetting the child unnecessarily. More importantly, if you really lose it in front of the child you lose credibility, it actually ends up putting you in a weaker position in the long run. If you are calm and authoritative then it's much more likely that the child will respect you and listen to you eventually.

FWIW startail, I think long lectures are just as pointless as smacking. Lectures and smacking make the parent feel better and do very little for the child. In fact I think lectures are just verbal smacking really - the lecturer ends up wearing the child down with words which really isn't beneficial.

My mother smacked me but not my brother. I've never been close to her and have a terrible relationship with her to this day. She'd swing for me in public if she thought I was being naughty and the extent of her discussion with me on why I shouldn't do things was 'wait until your father gets home.' I will never smack my child as a result - I will make it clear to him that I expect certain behaviour and I don't want him to live in fear of his mum as I did. I'm not talking about lecturing DS as if he was an adult, but something similar to a naughty step so that I can tell him what he's done wrong and he can take it in.

This makes it sound as if DM was abusive - she wasn't, it was just normal smacking, but it had such a negative impact that we are still struggling to improve our relationship now I'm in my thirties.

Coming back to OP, I have never really agreed with the naughty step stuff. Was your dad refering directly to the super-nanny style stuff on telly and in books? I think that the 'technique' used on tv is unacceptable in my view, and it makes the children pay for mistakes that parents have been making for years. Put the parents on the naught step-bench-chair-corner-whetever else.

I don't agree with smacking either. But I have smacked my son once because he ran in the street. I felt terrible.

I was shouted at loads when I was a child and was terrified of my mum. I try not to shout at my kids, but sometimes I do.

In our house, we give lots of praises for good stuff, we have clear rules with a red card/yellow card system. If they keep on with the bad behaviour some of their privileges get taken away ie. bedtime biscuit (they normally have bedtime milk with a biscuit before going to bed, and if they haven't behaved well the biscuit is not given) or we take TV time away, or their favorite toy is put away. We have had lots of sticker charts/star charts/smile charts for various goals, such as keeping bedroom tidy, put toys away, even staying in bed until 7 am.

As a teen, my 'misbehaviour' was 'discussed' with me (entirely rhetorical as anything I said was wrong anyway) and then I was grounded to my room with TV and stereo removed. I loved to read and since then my step-father has said that this used to 'annoy the hell out of him' but he couldn't really remove books . I was also virtually ignored by my mum to the point of not speaking to me at all which IMO was because she was upset as opposed to disciplining me. My younger sister was also made more of a fuss of during my punishments. I feel these punishments were about being unable to control me as opposed to trying to steer me on the right track and provide effective discipline. In essence time-out done badly.

To this day I feel constantly rankled by their inability to accept responsibility/listen to anyone else/overbearing natures and still can't believe that a mother can ignore her 14 year old daughter for 2 months. I still feel that my younger sister is favoured over me and they now try to control me with money.

I think time-out can be effective but like any negative reinforcement is harmful when done out of spite or anger.

We don't use 'naughty step' or 'time out' and we don't smack either. I think there are other ways though you need to do the groundwork when children are small. I don't think you can suddenly start trying to do positive discipiline on a 7 year old.

Someone upthread mentioned thinking about why children behave the way they do. I also look at ways to prevent 'naughty' behaviour happening in the first place. Distraction works when they're younger, and removing them from the situation also helps.

I believe parents also need to assess how much punishment is for their own benefit rather than the child's. If we want children to behave appropriately I believe we have to model good behaviour ourselves. It's a natural instinct for children to copy adults, it's one of the ways they learn about the world.

Worldgonecrazy, how do you discipline them when they're very young then? Discipline may not be the best word, but I can't find another now (in my defence, English isn't my first language). I'm genuinely interested, as DS is only 1, so way too young, but I can see some tantrums starting (not full-blown, but getting there I think). Now if I remove him from the situation and distract him it works, what about when he's older, but not old enough to understand about consequences?

I am sure he will push the boundaries and somehow I will have to let him know what is not acceptable.

I very much disagree with smacking, sometimes the Child doesn't even know what they have done and imo in makes it ok to hit others.
I tried the naughty chair, step and she really liked it, strangely and actually asked to sit there once. I told her that she had been a good girl and didn't need to sit on the naughty chair so she turned around and hit the dog, she said Naughty chair now Mummy?!Oh what to do, quick thinking.. I said no but the choc buttons I was going to give you later are going in the bin. She watched me put them in the bin and said sorry and gave the dog a cuddle. Naughty step/chair is no more but she does get told if she does something naughty one of her toys or a treat gets put in the bin. Harsh? Not sure but it has worked for her, all kids respond to different things and this works for us. I have thrown one of her little bouncy balls and 2 tiny toys away. Now all i have to do is start counting to 3 and she behaves.....actions mean consequences and I think learning early is best.
She is a really good girl and knows she is loved, everynight when I put her to bed I thank her for being a good girl and that she is loved.

I don?t like smacking. I feel that we should lead our children by example ? we wouldn?t hit a fellow adult if they did something ?naughty? so why would we do it to a little person.

I have problem-solved with families whose children had real problems at school/nursery because they were ?smacking? other children ? inevitably they can from a home environment where smacking was used as a form of discipline.

With regards to ?time-out? ? if used correctly and within reason (and balanced with a loving environment otherwise), it is an effective way of calmly dealing with potentially explosive situations. However, I work with MANY families who do not use the method correctly and I feel that in those circumstances, it could be damaging!

When very young just say no calmly or firmly, depending on the situation, and distract them. Sometimes I used to say a very sharp loud NO if they're about to touch the oven door for example, which is not super hot it would probably not burn them but their skin is so sensitive at that age. If they do a minor offence, like emptying the compost in a pot plant, I just say no firmly and move child away and try to distract.

Counting to 3 or 5 or 10 works for us too, especially in the morning when they don't want to gp upstairs brush their teeth etc. I often use the clock timer on the oven and say 'you have 3 minutes to put on your school uniform'. Same with tidying up their toys. I often do the same with reading (maybe I'm wrong on that one!) I say OK ten minutes of reading and they have to read out loud until the clock goes. Not sure that's a good tactic...

Very convenient for the smacker, but totally inaccurate to think it's all over in a short, sharp shock. Smacking is in no way better than the naughty step, just different. I clearly remember the rare occasions I was smacked over 30 years later. Quickly forgotten my eye...

IMO between the ages of 1 and 2, where the child is mobile and really starting to get into things, you just have to be vigilant, move them away from danger with a firm "no," distract them and keep things out of their way. Discipline isn't really going to work because the child has no concept of danger and doesn't really understand why they can't do certain things. If the child tantrums, just let them tantrum as long as they're safe. They're just working out frustration, they'll get over it quickly enough. Don't respond to a tantrum as they will quickly learn that tantrumming gets them what they want. It's fine for them to be annoyed about not being able to play with something desirable, and at that age they have no other way of expressing their anger other than screaming and shouting. They'll grow out of that stage eventually.

The main thing is not to put a child in a situation that they can't handle. I can never understand why some parents put their children in a room with a lot of things they can't have, or with a child that winds them up, then they don't monitor the situation and it all ends in anger and tears. It makes no sense. As the parent it's up to you to make the environment safe and if it's not safe then it's up to you to guide the child and help them to deal with it.

Hate to use the "never did me any harm" argument but I clearly remember being sent out of the room when I was naughty. I hated it and would kick the door until I eventually calmed down and was allowed back in. Basically, it worked. Apparently my mum once smacked me and I laughed at her. Clearly, this did not work.

It's logical - if you don't like someone's behaviour, you do not want to be around them. So you demonstrate this to a child by sending them out of the room. It also gives them the opportunity to calm down.

How anyone can think this is more damaging than physically hurting a child I don't know.

A modified version of the naughty step was the discipline commonly used in Sweden when I was a child, smacking being already frowned upon. I don't think all 40-50 yo Swedes are emotionally disturbed though I could well be wrong.

It does strike me in retrospect that the naughty step was probably used more sparingly than it is now in the UK and that punishment generally seems to be more strictly rationed in Scandinavian society.

am I the only person reading this who keeps reading 'unacceptable' as pronounced by Supernanny?

I think the naughty step has it's place, we'll probably use a variation with DS when the time comes (currently only 1, we go for avoidance, distraction and removal so far!). Hoping we can use it sparingly otherwise it must lose it's value surely? It's got to be better than smacking. I can still remember being smacked- 'just wait until your Dad comes home, you'll get a smack' and hiding when I heard the door :(

Seriously??? I find anyone favouring a smack over a few minutes of cooling down time slightly disyurbed to be honest. It's aa ridiculouss comment to make. Children need attention and love yes, but removing them during a volitile situation is purely removing attention from an undesirable behaviour and giving both parties a chance to cool down. If my DS1 hit his younger brother, what kind of a message am I sending him by simply hitting him? All smacking teahes is that when someone doesn't comply with our wishes however unreasonable said wishes may be then it's OK to respond with our fists. Well it's NOT. It's not a solution and therefore NOT a lesson I will be teaching wither of my children. The naughty step works for us. Hitting in my opinion has created a generaton of lazy parents who think it's acceptable to use physical force against defenceless children.

sorry typos, feeding ds2.