Time Outs to be banned In Australian Childcare

[Lightworker]

https://hearttoheartparenting.org/2011/10/time-out-and-other-punishments-to-be-banned-in-childcare/

Thought people would like to know. x

 

[Blah11]

interesting.

i dont think amelies nursery does any sort of discipline like time outs. Actually, i have no idea what they do I think they just give them a bit of a row, explain what they did wrong and why and ask them to say sorry.

I however, will continue to use time outs if amelie is really naughty. she only goes in time out once in a blue moon (usually if she hits or spits) but it sure is effective.

 

[Blah11]

https://www.aaimhi.org/inewsfiles/Position Paper 3.pdf


explains why time outs arent used. I disagree with some of the points though.

 

[freckleonear]

I think this is fantastic progress and I completely agree with all the points in the AAIMHI paper.

Time out is an abbreviation for "time out from positive reinforcement" and was invented in the late 1950s as a way of controlling the behaviour of laboratory animals. Alfie Kohn argues that it is a form of love withdrawal that removes a child from your presence, attention and love. It's a method of punishment that makes children suffer emotionally rather than physically.

It can certainly be very effective at controlling behaviour in the short-term, but I think the long-term goal of raising children is much more important. I don't want obedient children, I want children who want to do what is right.

I honestly don't think that children sit in time out thinking about what they've done wrong. I remember being sent to sit on the stairs as a child and all I remember is how furiously angry I was. They're probably sitting there thinking how unfair it is, how to get revenge or how to avoid getting caught next time. Time out doesn't give instruction, guidance or knowledge, other than how to avoid time out next time.

Time out also teaches children that when there is a problem their role models try to solve it by making the other person unhappy so that they give in. I don't think that's a helpful message to send about dealing with conflict.

Researchers Hoffman and Saltzstein said that punishments "direct the child to the consequences of his behaviour for the actor, that is, for the child himself" and make them less likely to consider how their actions affect others.

If we went to visit an adult friend and found them in the middle of a really difficult day, struggling to control their emotions and being grumpy at their family, we wouldn't shout at them and send them to sit in the naughty corner! We would give them a chance to calm down, make them a cup of tea, listen to them and help resolve their problems. Don't children deserve to be treated with similar respect?

We no longer use time out in our house. Instead we use time in. The children are given the opportunity to retreat to the comfort corner, either alone or with cuddles. They can read, play, let out their anger or whatever they need to do until they feel ready to rejoin the family. Learning to take a break and regain their control or change their attitude is an important life skill and time in helps to build a trusting and respectful relationship.

 

[Ashley8806]

Personally, and I'm sure I will get jumped for this, I feel society is taking it way too far to end discpline for our kids. While I obviously don't agree with beating our kids, I feel kids these days are not discplined enough. Time out is the least abusive form of discpline there is, IMO. If it works, then why not?

 

[Lightworker]

Personally, and I'm sure I will get jumped for this, I feel society is taking it way too far to end discpline for our kids. While I obviously don't agree with beating our kids, I feel kids these days are not discplined enough. Time out is the least abusive form of discpline there is, IMO. If it works, then why not?

I am generally not a fan of the word "discipline" only because of the negative connotations attached by modern day society (time-outs included). If discipline is just a way of teaching your child what is acceptable etc...then time-out is not the least-abusive.

Why go for any method that is even moderately abusive? Why not look at something else that will not be abusive whatsoever?

I like gentle guidance, where you teach via positive verbal communication. The other day (or was it months ago) someone posted on here about the percentage of parents who ACTUALLY hit their children. It was astounding in that many of them used these types of "discipline" yet it is abundantly clear that it is not working collectively for society.

Gentle parenting yields very positive results, and I think more needs to be done to educate parents on this instead of people seeing time-outs everywhere they turn and thinking that they are acceptable.

I am not jumping on you lol..please don't take it that way, I just quoted you because you disagreed. Hope you don't mind x

 

[Lightworker]

I think this is fantastic progress and I completely agree with all the points in the AAIMHI paper.

Time out is an abbreviation for "time out from positive reinforcement" and was invented in the late 1950s as a way of controlling the behaviour of laboratory animals. Alfie Kohn argues that it is a form of love withdrawal that removes a child from your presence, attention and love. It's a method of punishment that makes children suffer emotionally rather than physically.

I agree with this. If this kind of progress is being made, it can only mean we can be hopeful that it will spread to other nations. x

 

[Ashley8806]

Personally, and I'm sure I will get jumped for this, I feel society is taking it way too far to end discpline for our kids. While I obviously don't agree with beating our kids, I feel kids these days are not discplined enough. Time out is the least abusive form of discpline there is, IMO. If it works, then why not?

I am generally not a fan of the word "discipline" only because of the negative connotations attached by modern day society (time-outs included). If discipline is just a way of teaching your child what is acceptable etc...then time-out is not the least-abusive.

Why go for any method that is even moderately abusive? Why not look at something else that will not be abusive whatsoever?

I like gentle guidance, where you teach via positive verbal communication. The other day (or was it months ago) someone posted on here about the percentage of parents who ACTUALLY hit their children. It was astounding in that many of them used these types of "discipline" yet it is abundantly clear that it is not working collectively for society.

Gentle parenting yields very positive results, and I think more needs to be done to educate parents on this instead of people seeing time-outs everywhere they turn and thinking that they are acceptable.

I am not jumping on you lol..please don't take it that way, I just quoted you because you disagreed. Hope you don't mind x

I don't mind, I just feel that there is nothing wrong with time-outs, or disciplining our children. What works for one parent and child, may not work for another, but I personally know time outs and occasional spankings work here for DD.

 

[smelly07]

I amazed that they were ever able to do this anyway.....In all my childcare experience we have NEVER been allowed to use 'time out's 'naughty steps/chairs'. we are not even allowed to use the word 'naughty'.

personally I also do not agree with and have never used time outs or the naughty step with my children and i am AMAZED that parents and professionals actually even consider such things with children under 3.


it was one of my pet hates with bloody super nanny to!!!!

 

[smelly07]

I think this is fantastic progress and I completely agree with all the points in the AAIMHI paper.

Time out is an abbreviation for "time out from positive reinforcement" and was invented in the late 1950s as a way of controlling the behaviour of laboratory animals. Alfie Kohn argues that it is a form of love withdrawal that removes a child from your presence, attention and love. It's a method of punishment that makes children suffer emotionally rather than physically.

It can certainly be very effective at controlling behaviour in the short-term, but I think the long-term goal of raising children is much more important. I don't want obedient children, I want children who want to do what is right.

I honestly don't think that children sit in time out thinking about what they've done wrong. I remember being sent to sit on the stairs as a child and all I remember is how furiously angry I was. They're probably sitting there thinking how unfair it is, how to get revenge or how to avoid getting caught next time. Time out doesn't give instruction, guidance or knowledge, other than how to avoid time out next time.

Time out also teaches children that when there is a problem their role models try to solve it by making the other person unhappy so that they give in. I don't think that's a helpful message to send about dealing with conflict.

Researchers Hoffman and Saltzstein said that punishments "direct the child to the consequences of his behaviour for the actor, that is, for the child himself" and make them less likely to consider how their actions affect others.

If we went to visit an adult friend and found them in the middle of a really difficult day, struggling to control their emotions and being grumpy at their family, we wouldn't shout at them and send them to sit in the naughty corner! We would give them a chance to calm down, make them a cup of tea, listen to them and help resolve their problems. Don't children deserve to be treated with similar respect?

We no longer use time out in our house. Instead we use time in. The children are given the opportunity to retreat to the comfort corner, either alone or with cuddles. They can read, play, let out their anger or whatever they need to do until they feel ready to rejoin the family. Learning to take a break and regain their control or change their attitude is an important life skill and time in helps to build a trusting and respectful relationship.

That made me giggle

totally agree with you

 

[Ashley8806]

Just a few examples of why I don't agree with things like this:

My husband's uncle is dating a woman who never spanked, put her children in time out, grounded, or anything with her children. Shew as very anti-discipline. Her 13 year old daughter is now having sex with 18 and 19 year old men, stole Dh uncle's car and wrecked it and then tried to light it on fire, and smokes and steals from everyone. Her son, who is 11, steals money from family, and stole the gas to try to burn Dh uncle's car.

My Aunt's boyfriends daughter, was the same way. Her mother didn't agree with discipline. Her daughter is ELEVEN, having sex with 25 year old men, tried to burn my aunt's house down, smokes, steals, and beats up my cousin that is the same age whenever she tries to tell her parents what's going on. SHe is now in a place for troubled kids, because it was either juvi, or this special school.

Now I look at DH and his brother. They were spanked, grounded, put in time out, even hit with the belt a few times (I don't agree with this, but just putting it in there because that's what happened). Neither one has been to jail, steals, smokes, nothing. Were not in trouble as teenagers, or adults. They are respectful to their parents and others, and have a good head on their shoulders.

It's situations like these I look at and realize that there has to be discipline, IMO. But anyways, those are just some examples of why I feel this way.

 

[freckleonear]

I absolutely agree that there has to be discipline, but you don't need to use punishments like spanking and time out to have that. There are plenty of ways to discipline children without resorting to hitting and ignoring them. It sounds like your examples didn't use any discipline at all.

 

[Lightworker]

In the time out debate, I have noticed that many parents think that if you don't use time-out or corporal punishment, then there is no discipline. There seems to be the misconception that these are the only forms of discipline.

 

[DLA]

I am only speaking of time outs, not spanking. What concerns me with doing away with time outs is how you're supposed to teach a child action and consequences. Putting a child in time out would never be my first resort. I agree you should guide them, explain what they did was wrong, why etc. What happens when the child repeats the behavior over and over. I just don't see how a child is going to understand that there are consequences their actions (they shouldn't be expected to automatically know) until you actually give them a consequence. This gives the child responsibility and accountibility. I'm not being argumentative but I really don't know how you can teach children that they're accountable for the actions just by explaining. I think this is a case where they have to experience the consequence, otherwise why wouldn't you keep repeating the behavior and saying "sorry" after. I agree I want my child to choose the right thing because it's the right thing not out of fear but that seems very idealistic and really holds the child to unrealistically high expectations. I mean lets face it, they're children they're going to make mistakes.

 

[Ramen]

What do they propose? I've only seen one person try raising a child without discipline and it was a family friend with a daughter a little older than me. She never learned actions mean meaningful consequences that can inconvenience her. Her mother kicked her out for menacing her with a knife when after 17 years she put her foot down, told her to stop stealing money, and switched her discipline style from explaining how your actions hurt others to taking away tv and cell phone privileges. She hasn't seen her daughter in five years now. I don't think her daughter was just born rotten I think she was done a huge disservice by being raised in the land of doing as you please with no real consequence. DLA pretty much summed up what I was going to say.

 

[freckleonear]

But time out is an artificial consequence. You can use natural and logical consequences to teach a child that their actions have consequences. Time out just teaches them that their actions have unpleasant consequences for themselves, it doesn't make them think about what effect their actions have on others.

 

[DLA]

But time out is an artificial consequence. You can use natural and logical consequences to teach a child that their actions have consequences. Time out just teaches them that their actions have unpleasant consequences for themselves, it doesn't make them think about what effect their actions have on others.

I guess I don't see why we can't strive to teach them both. That yes your actions can have unpleasant consequences & have an effect on others. No doubt I would want my child to choose to do or not do something because of how it can/will effect others. I just don't think children can always fully understand that concept, hence reinforcing personal consequences until they're old enough to make the right decision for the right reason. Not sure if that made sense?

 

[Blah11]

Natural consequences is good in theory but I can think of a million situations where its just not practical. What's the consequence for spitting on me? What about when she refuses to put clothes on and were late for something? Do I let her go naked?

 

[Blah11]

And people don't just auto tell them time out. I do explain to her why she's not to do x, y and z but she's a toddler, she sometimes thinks its funny to run off and doesn't quite get the reasons why. She understands if I put her in her buggy for a few mins that when I say don't run off I mean it.

 

[Tasha]

I worked in a nursery and we werent allowed to do timeout either, which I think is a good thing. My school use to put us on time out against the wall at playtime if we did something bad and it was humilating, I dont think a child should ever feel humilated in front of their peers. However my parents used timeout for me and it did make me think about what I had done.

I