Supernanny gets a kicking in the Guardian today....

[harpsichordcarrier]

blimey, this interview makes her sound so v thick

I've never seen the programme but I think one of the very true things Decca Aitkenhead says is that when making a tv programme the most important thing is never going to be happiness of the children and families involved, it's going to be viewing figures. I suspect (but am prepared to be corrected) the programme is reality tv/light entertainment, not serious documentary and therefore the more out of control the families and children are, i.e. the more drama and conflict that exists, the happier the producers will be. Oh well, such is the sad state of a lot of tv today imo.

It's a shame because carefully made proper programme making could really help a lot of parents, I'm not sure Supernanny does. But as I haven't even seen it I am prepared to be completely corrected on this!

agree about star charts and pasta jars

also too much bloody work for me to implement them

No aviatrix it doesn't invalidate her point, but it does make me want to hit her

I agree aviatrix, and this is the first article I have read which is anything but fawning about "supernanny". Franny is right, that her "methods" are currently the only show in town as far as parenting methods are concerned, and seem to have been swallowed whole sale by the redst of the country.
which makes it a shame, imo, that there doesn't appear to have been much thought or considersation given to the psychological efffect on the children/family dynamic.
when I say "shame" I mean, of course, "shockingly negligent"

I'm a fan of Super Nanny. I think she does great stuff. She goes into the homes of families whose children are almost ruining their lives. These kids often can't eat at a table, throw tantrums constantly, the parents are afraid of them or in some cases constantly shout at them or in at least one case hit them.
Can't bear the middle class smuggery about her pronunciation & grammer errors. What utter snobbery.
This woman does improve the situation. She encourages the parents to play with their children, give them home cooked healthy meals, involve their children in daily life & take responsibility & she gives them some discipline techniques to break the cycle of some really difficult behaviour.
To be honest I think the guardian writer scores easy cheap points in this article.

I have used star charts periodically. I think people are missing the point if they think they are about motivating the child. Imo they are about getting the adult started on actively noticing what is going right and praising it by giving them a structured format to do this. So they are about combatting the "omg my child is a monster handful and I don't know where to start in dealing with it" feeling in an easyish way by accentuating the positive. Most of the time I don't need a star chart to do this but occasionally I get in a rut with my kids and I think star charts are quite good to kick start us into a more virtuous circle. We never keep them up long term because I'm too disorganised and, yes, just giving the boys lashings of extra attention without a star chart works just as well. But sometimes if I'm feeling overwhelmed I like a bit of join the dots type scaffolding to help me along.

"She encourages the parents to play with their children, give them home cooked healthy meals, involve their children in daily life & take responsibility & she gives them some discipline techniques to break the cycle of some really difficult behaviour."
Agree Bugsy.

Just about to say 'Yes, exactly' to last post and then realised who'd written it - so obviously I'd agree

I quite enjoyed the first season of Supernanny, in the same way as I enjoyed the first seasons of Wife Swap (or Big Brother for that matter). It's when things get that cult status that things get problematic. I think that it is important to realise that Jo Frost did not create the look of the programme, I read an interview with her a couple of years ago, and the dominatrix stuff was entirely the programme makes idea. I haven't watched the programme recently, but she seemed a fairly straightforward nanny to me. Yes she gets her words muddled up and she has an irritating accent, but then she is not there to teach elocution is she? I can't see that she has ever pretended to approach things in any other way than "this is what I have found works in my experience". I think that people just have a tendency to latch onto child care theories and think this is the only way, whether that be Dr Spock or someone off the TV. I'm not keen on the this is disgusting approach either, but she does say it about both the children and often the adults too, and lets face it, how often have you sat there and agreed? Most of the families I have seen on Supernanny do not have anything majorly wrong with them (I am quite prepared to accept this may have changed, in line with the general must be more exciting than the last series thing), and a bit more parental insight was probably all that was needed to make a change. I think that the interviewer is a snob. Having said that I don't think I'd like to have JF as my nanny!

I think that all of the current rash of parenting guru-style television programmes represent an alarming development in our society. I believe that they represent a new stage in the Western capitalist agenda. The agenda is, IMO, to standardise and homogenise parenting and family life in the same way that capitalism seeks to standardise and make uniform all aspects of human society, from working habits to eating habits. Parenting is being reduced to a fixed set of protocols which are universally applicable, so that any child can be parented by any adult/group of adults/a robot if necessary. These methods rob the parent-child relationship of any personal or creative quality and render it totally predictable. Once these methods are implanted firmly in the national consciousness (which is happening remarkably quickly in the case of the naughty step/time out/star charts/pasta jars) anyone can take care of a child in exactly the same way, with relatively inexpensive and minimal training. The result is a climate in which both parents are equally productive as economic units, without the messy complications engendered by individual family life and its intrusion on paid employment.

That's what I think, anyway. Jo Frost and her ilk are unwitting stooges in a wider and rather horrifying agenda of social engineering.

I find her whole persona harsh and archaic in approach.I wouldn't let her anywhere near my ds and feel her main agenda is to shut the kids up by any means and to make the parent a figure of fear and authority.Don't agree that commenting on her awful grammar etc is snobbery

Disagree aviatrix. I think that she tries to help parents understand that quite often the children are craving attention.
Having had a child whose behaviour became so bad I was unable to cope & ended up in a child pyschologists office, I can see that the techniques Super Nanny uses are very similar to the ones I was given my child pyscholgist.
Time out for bad behaviour & positive reinforcement for anything good. Lots of involvement in daily life, encouraging responsibility for themselves etc etc.
Most of it is common sense & in normal circumstances you could do it yourself, but sometimes you need outside help to break the spiral of bad behaviour.
For most of the parents on this show, parenting has become a battleground & I think Jo Frost actually shows that it doesn't have to be that way. Very often one of her rules for every member in the house is no shouting. She shows parents how to make some time for their children, & gets them to enjoy each others company for what often appears to be like the first time in a long time.

But Greensleeves, parenting gurus have been doing this for many many years. The only thing that is new is that they are on TV. I've read a few histories of childcare advice, and parenting fads are hardly a new phenomena. Think Dr Spock, for example, or the whole put your baby out of doors thing (There were some great strap the pram to the window pictures in one of the books), or the push for formula. There will be another wave along shortly I am sure, it's a good market for advice, authority and quick wins.

Agree with Bugsy. The woman encourages parents to spend time with their children, get involved in what they are doing, and give lots of praise.

Greensleeves, you could say the same about Truby King or almost any other childcare guru. Not a new phenomenon except that the government are getting into it too. And that's not Jo Frost's fault.

I think the journalist probably just took a dislike to her as she is as common as muck and it is the guardian after all.

it does seem as if children are being 'socially engineered' to be alike, my ds(4) has had so many goals he has to achieve, phrases to learn it drives me bonkers. it's like they all have to be able to do the same things at the same time to fit into school life better. i find the whole thing totally confusing, information changes monthly

Not sure Greensleeves. One of my closest friends is a primary teacher & she has taught in some of the poorest countries in the world: tibet, northern india, nepal & peru. She says that the children in these countries have absoulte respect for their parents & elders & have nothing like the freedom that Western children have to express their opinions & behave in any way they like.
She says they are an absolute dream to teach because they sit in complete silence & obey her every command.
Not quite sure where that fits with your ideas about Western homogenity. (? spelling)

Greensleeves .

I like "HOTT" because it always makes me think about the things I should do more of with my children - play with them, listen to them, tell them I what I like about them, tell them that I love them, not fob them off while I'm on Mumsnet.

I have only seen a couple of episodes of US "Supernanny" and I don't like it. But that is because the parents seem to be so unpleasant, and the dads always seem to be flatly contradicting the mums. They always seem to lack common sense completely....

Agree Bugsy. And aviatrix, that was not what I said, btw! (Aren't you the one with a 13 month old baby, anyway? With respect, I can't see that you'd have had much experience of dealing with difficult behaviour yet or that any sort of parenting ideas for toddlers and up would be of much use for a good few monthss. Or do you work have older ones too? Or work with children or something?)

Sorry- that should read "do you have older ones too or work with children?" I'm probably mixing you up with someone else and you have 5 ranging in age from 22 years to 6 months after all that!

I think the article is unfair too. While I don't agree with all of JFs methods the article only mentions the naughty step/punishment aspects of SuperNanny. The families I have seen on the programme seem so dysfunctional - they seem oblivious that they are creating the very behaviour they deplore. JF shows them the basics - spending time with your children, doing things with them, praising them to the skies when they do something positive, regular bedtimes, regular mealtimes where the familiy sits down together...at least, they seem basic to me, but some of these families don't seem to have the first idea.

OK, she's not overly bright, and 'asseptable' bugs the crap out of me, but I think her techniques work in families where any form of 'parenting' has completely broken down - and, often, the parents don't even like their children any more.

She's clearly been exploited as a brand by the programme makers - someone a bit more intelligent (Tanya Byron?) wouldn't have let herself be marketed in such a way but I hate Decca Aitkenhead's sneering attitude in that article (I'm not a fan anyway). Whenever someone is held up by the meedja as a 'guru' there's always a backlash: this will be the start of it, no doubt.

Wow Greensleeves never thought of it like that. Poor Jo, a pawn in a much wider game. Bad parenting exists everywhere and I know I am the product of some very bad parenting (not done me any harm ) so I suppose even though you have a point about all children being treated the same at least it's not all children being subject to an evil cruel philosophy like spare the rod spoil the child.

I'm not a huge fan of Jo but I do find her strangely sexually attractive (DP is a little concerned at my view here) but I think the reason why there is a glut of these programmes is cos we don't have any people to ask for advice.

My sister is going through all kinds of problems with her teenage son (drugs and failing badly at school etc.. )all of which I believe are a direct result of bad parenting ( I watched it happen) and I wish she would get some professional advice even if it was in the shape of someone like Jo.