OFSTED has banned 'time out' in nursery education

[merovingian]

My spouse is a nursery teacher and told me this week that OFSTED have banned the use of 'time out' in nursery education.

This means, for example, that if Child A bites Child B, rather than taking Child A aside and telling them that this is a bad thing to do and putting them on their own for 5 minutes to make the point, they have to take Child A to a different activity with different children and... that's it.

I was also told that the word 'naughty' is banned. I'm not sure if this is also an OFSTED rule or whether it's just this particular nursery, but nonetheless I was astonished. Why can't you say 'naughty'? Because it has bad connotations, I was told.

Neither my spouse nor any of the other teachers at the nursery can believe the rule about time out. They are astonished. It leaves them with practically no recourse whatsoever to demonstrate to a child that what they have done is a particularly bad thing that they should not do. All they can do now is raise their voice.

I'll say that again: the ONLY way a nursery teacher can express to a child that what they just did was very bad is to raise their voice. A 'good' child might not like that and might learn. A regularly misbehaving child, I am told from my spouse and other teachers, will take absolutely no notice whatsoever of a raised voice. In fact it can even encourage serial misbehaviour as the intended goal of getting attention is attained. Being left in a corner for 5 minutes does not give the child the attention they crave and, in the teachers experience, can correct misbehaviour if it is done appropriately.

In my opinion this continual erosion of disciplinary actions teachers have at their disposal will render them little more than daycare supervisors. Now, depending on the nursery your child is at, perhaps that isn't a big change. my spouse works at a very highly regarded nursery where the development of children's mental and social capacities is actively encouraged. These children spend the vast majority of their waking hours with these teachers, and in most cases I know for a fact that they spend considerably more time with the teachers than they do with their parents.

I believe such measures by OFSTED are in reaction to fear of litigation, and nothing else.

These teachers aren't beating the children in any way, aren't abusing them mentally with harsh discipline; they are educating children about right and wrong in a way that the child can understand and acknowledge (ideally). Simply giving the child something and/or someone else to play with when they do something that would previously have warranted time out is teaching that child, in my opinion, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

As some others have said, its two fold really. Not only do you need to punish bad behaviour, you also need to reward good behaviour so that the child gets the message that good behaviour contacts positive reinforcement and attention and negative behaviour does not. I believe planned ignore and time out are synonymous. When you put a child in time out you are ignoring them (i.e. not giving them any attention, this is not to say you are not watching), and this should, in theory, reduce attention seeking behaviour. What many people do not always realize is that behaviour often increases before it decreases when you start trying to reduce it, and people often think the approach isn't working before giving it a chance.

I think if a child has a problem with hitting other children then it should not stop at dealing with the situation when it arises but also talking a lot about the impact of hitting, etc so that the child starts to learn how his actions impact others. This is a very difficult and advanced concept for 2-3 year olds.

You also need consistent staff that know each child and can spot early signs of frustration or tiredness, then support the child to recognise those feelings and express them appropriately. Then you need to help each child value themselves and develop a positive self image. I take my hat off to school teachers who can do this with 30 kids, I have 8 in my room and it's hard work (they are much younger)

I don't have anything to add, except that I totally agree with tethersand and tiggyd

Is the OP coming back?

I'll add my twopence to what others have already said - Ofsted can't "ban" anything like using time outs or the word naughty; they regulate and inspect registered childcare according to the Childcare Act 2000 and a host of associated regulations that the government passed. If the EYFS statutory framework said "the word naughty is not to be used" then Ofsted could enforce that, but they wouldn't decide that for themselves. Different inspectors do sometimes have different opinions on things and I have heard of cases where their preferences have been communicated in a "this is Ofsted policy" way, but it's just as likely that in this case the owners of the nursery misunderstood a recommendation - they should get clarification from Ofsted if that is the case.

In practice if staff at a nursery were observed calling children naughty ("Tom is a very naughty little boy") then they would probably get picked up on that since it's not very good behaviour management; all settings should have a formal behaviour management policy and most would include something about not negatively labelling children and instead focusing on the behaviour itself ("that was an unkind thing to do").

And as previously discussed by several people, "Time Out" covers a wide range of techniques from taking a child away from a situation and asking them to think about what they've done to isolating and ignoring them, making them sit on a chair or step for a set number of minutes, sometimes in a different room. What one person calls Time Out may be fine, but another version may be inappropriate for a preschool age group.

I hate "time out". I talk to my child calmly and gently when he does things that aren't okay, we read "feet are not for kicking" "hands are not for hitting" etc. and then move on. I think the problem with "time out" is it focuses the child's attention on the punishment and not what they've done and why it's wrong - my own belief is that this makes them likelier to avoid being caught, not to behave well. I'd rather talk about how nasty it is when we're hurt ourselves, and how being kind is a good way to be. "Not kind" is a big theme in this house, and how is a Silly Step or whatever kind, either? It's a form of social ostracism, and I don't feel comfortable with teaching kids to use that when kneehigh to grasshoppers. They do it in the playground soon enough without official, pre-school sanction of the method.

Having said that, my son's nursery use a Silly Seat so plainly do do it. I trust and like them and accept there are lots of views on discipline, and I let the staff get on with whatever they like, as long as my son adores going and is happy and settled. My aunt is a primary school teacher, and uses shame a lot to keep kids in line (they all seem to use the "traffic light" system) and she says it's very different, managing 30 kids, to managing 1 as a stay at home mother half the week - and that I can't extrapolate what works for my son to what will work on all. I accept those points completely. But no, if they say it's no longer allowed, I won't be sad. I think it's using humiliation to enforce limits, and I can't get behind that, though I accept it's the most common method in use, and don't think it can harm a child enough to get agitated about.

And before you assume my refusal to use shame as a discipline tool means my son is spoiled - the nursery have told me he is calm, adaptable, has excellent social skills and is very popular both with the staff and the other kids. That's large parts luck (he has his father's sunny temperament) but it also means not being punitive at home and focusing on the behaviour we want, not the behaviour we don't like, isn't spoiling him.

"It's all well and good playing the long game with 3 and 4 year olds, but I work with 2 year olds who sometimes need time away from the fray to get their newly discovered rage under control. Not alone, I would never do that to a toddler in my care, just away from the main group for a minute with a calm adult."

I totally agree, and to me that's not SuperNanny style time out. That's actually common sense, loving acceptance that very small kids can't always manage their own emotions and need a little less stimulation for a while. The fact my son talks about a "silly seat" at his nursery indicates to me that it's not quite the same thing. But, again, he loves the staff and they are warm, loving and kind. I trust them, and theory means less than that.

It's all well and good explaining to a child what is wrong, but you also have to stop them doing it. Take pre lunch biscuit theft:
Mum: "Henry, taking a biscuit without asking is wrong"
Henry: "Yes. But I got a biscuit! "
Mum: It's a nice treat to have free range, organic, fare trade biscuits, but now your tummy has less room for quinoa with roasted vegetables"
Henry: "Yeah, but I got a biscuit! "
Mum: "I want you to know you decision makes me feel sad."
Henry :"I can live with that. Go back to your pilates next door so I can get another biscuit. "

Discipline isn't about shaming anybody. It's about letting a child know that if they do something they know they shouldn't do, there will be negative consequences.

TBH in that situation I would cut my losses, and move the biscuits while he eats whatever lunch he still has room for.

Children are often better at exploring fictional characters motives than their own. I often use stories to explain to children about their behaviour.
e.g. goldilocks - "how do you think the bears felt when they got home? Do you think Goldilocks should have waited till they got home/been more careful with the bears' things/been less greedy? (delete as appropriate to situation) what do you think she should do next time?"

"Discipline isn't about shaming anybody. It's about letting a child know that if they do something they know they shouldn't do, there will be negative consequences."

Erm, sorry, but what? You do know the "traffic light" system in primary schools means moving kids over to "orange" or "red" on a board the whole class can see, as a punishment for bad behaviour? That is shame-based as a behaviour-modifier. It just is. You can frilly it up by calling it a consequence, but that's rather like saying a cod isn't a fish, it's a food you eat with chips. It's both. And giving your own putative script with the lines you would like to see in a form of discipline you don't personally favour is a little facile, no?

Kids aren't stupid; they know the consequences come from being caught, and often try hard not to do things where they can be seen next time if you punish them. If you can explain why something is unfair/unreasonable, then they think about the behaviour and not the punishment. Which is likelier, IMO, to alter the behaviour when you aren't there to supervise. I'm not talking about the wafty parents you hear of who helplessly say, "oh darling, that wasn't very nice...". I'm firm with my son and insist on good behaviour. But I rarely punish to get it. I talk over what was wrong, and why it was stupid/unpleasant. That way the focus is on the behaviour itself and not the consequence, which is usually unrelated. A kid pissed off with a punishment isn't regretful they did whatever. They're just angry they were caught.

Punishments feel good to administer sometimes because they feel fairer. But I don't think they are effective, as often. I use consequence based punishments for table manners, as that works, because they eat before adults so sneakiness won't help any. But when it comes to kindness related stuff I think actually appealing to their better nature is more effective. Most kids have a very clear sense of what is kind and not so kind, and reasoning works. They get the point of fairness. It's thinking about what forms of behaviour management suit what occasion.

I think most people like punishments because it makes them feel they're doing something. That doesn't make them effective on that basis alone. It's usually replicating how you were brought up, so it seems "common sense". I don't think it's the only, or even the most effective means. I'm trying to instil self-regulation, and the best way to do that is to get the child on board with what they did wrong, and why it was wrong, IMO. Most kids are fundamentally reasonable, if given the opportunity. It's the same thinking as giving a count of 20 before you leave a play venue, so they can finish up, rather than suddenly dragging them away. If DH did that to me in a pub I'd be livid. Saying we have to go soon, can we finish this last drink, is polite. Obviously I'm in charge with my kid and DH isn't with me, and on rare occasions I have to pull rank, but modelling courtesy and assuming a kid will be reasonable until given reason to think otherwise does work wonders.

As I say, I accept large groups probably need clear-cut discipline and don't mind what forms are adopted as long as my kid is happy in general. He's doubtless had to go on the silly seat or whatever, and that's fine. But not at home and not with me, and as my methods are plainly working on him (not saying for sure they would with another, I can't know that) I don't plan to alter them.

Sorry, bumping this. Does anyone know if this is the case?

My 2 year old shoved someone in nursery today. I mentioned to nursery that we use a "thinking corner" for any aggression at home. We say "you are a bit excited/angry etc but it's not okay to hit. Go and think in the corner".

He heads off, we don't have a set time limit and we ask him periodically if he's ready to have a hug. To be honest, most of the time if he's excited and hits because of this he will come straight back for a hug but if he's angry he sometimes needs to "cool off" for a minute. He tends to just sit in the corner very nicely, he knows he's not in "trouble", there is no use of negative language and if there are specific circumstances where we can see that he's very tired/upset by it, we would go to him and support him to have a hug if we felt that it was really that he was overwhelmed by a situation.

It's pretty gentle, to be honest - but nursery said they are "not allowed", that they have to tell him that the behaviour is "unkind" and show him the consequences (I'm fine with this) but then distract him by playing with him somewhere else. I don't really agree with this because if he does it for attention, then effectively he is gaining a free pass to have an adult sit and play with him. I don't want him using aggression as a means of getting attention and I truly believe he actually needs the time out to regulate his own emotions when he is hyped up or angry.

I am hoping this isn't going to lead to bad behaviour in nursery because he knows this boundary very well at home and it's unfortunate it can't be consolidated.. I just think it's madness that gentle time out approaches can't be used. What's so wrong about giving toddlers boundaries?

Given that it's an old thread, it was clearly BS or miscommunication

I can't be bothered to read all of the posts, has anybody mentioned " Feelings Corner/Area " this is the new and preferred title of the former " Time out " Providers are encouraged to provide an Area where thought and reflection will encourage positive behaviour.

Well the fact that you can't be bothered to read the posts is fairly bloody obvious.

IT IS AN OLD THREAD

Oh bloody hell I just read 3/4 of this before I realised it's a zombie

im having issues with this, my son is 2 in the hitting and kicking stage taking him else where to play is teaching him NOTHING its mentally and emotionally draining me and i dont know what to do or say anymore, what we do in 3 days nursery then undoes my son isnt naughty but he has to test boundaries like they all do thats how we learn but then no boundaries are been set for him to learn by and from I AM ABSOLOUTLY DESPARING AT THIS
and im loosing my patients with it all, if they cant do as i have asked then why should i even bother? why am i going to tell my child off 6 hours after the event has taken place and he properly dosnt even remember !

@firstimeboymum95 this is a zombie thread 🧟‍♀️

It wasn't true when it was posted in 2011, and it's not true now

im aware this is a extremely old thread but im at a loss with it all

if it is not banned why is nursery telling me its banned and on the ofsted website is telling me it is also banned, if it is not the case how do i get them to understand my frustration and get them to use it ?

Your son is 2. Time outs are not age appropriate. That's why nurseries don't do them, not because they're "banned".

THIS THREAD IS 13 YEARS OLD....