http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/consequences.html

GREAT article! Your thoughts?

<font color=purple>Let your love be Felt!</font color=purple>

<font color=blue>[b]~ Amy Bean ~ Independent Consultant</font color=blue>
The Story Teller - Beautiful, colorful, diverse and affordable felt products! (http://www.thestoryteller.com/jellybeans/index.shtml)

http://www.thestoryteller.com/jellybeans/images/ForkliftDriverAva.jpg
<font color=red>[b]Sweet Ava Marie, Diva (and Forklift Driver) in Training

Some thoughts/questions: In life, some behaviors are not acceptable at times and in certain places. I imagine that by allowing the child to never feel the pressures of consequences they would also not learn self-control and what is and what isn't acceptable behavior. For instance if I am a child and I choose to be loud during class, and the teacher has continuously asked me to be quiet so she can teach, and I have continued to ignore her requests and doing whatever I choose, then what is to be done? When reasoning with a child goes unnoticed and ignored by choice of the child, then what is a person to do?

On the same note, what about adults? Those who in anger murder people, or abuse people. Or what about this guy http://twiggy.dhs.org/faq.html (the creator of babysmasher.com)....No consequences for them too?

<font color=blue>Candace</font color=blue> http://www.amitymama.com/images/icons/smile.gif
<font color=red>Mama to a 4yr old ds, 3 yr old dd, and 2 yr old dd</font color=red>

one_computer_lane@hotmail.com

My Feedback (http://amitymama.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=feedback&Number=87108&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=)

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by Charity on Wed Jan 30 04:02 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Wanted to add, I wasn't being sarcastic with my above questions. I truly would like to know if you use the no consequences method, how one would deal with people in the above situation.

<font color=blue>Candace</font color=blue> http://www.amitymama.com/images/icons/smile.gif
<font color=red>Mama to a 4yr old ds, 3 yr old dd, and 2 yr old dd</font color=red>

one_computer_lane@hotmail.com

http://www.amitysworld.com/dcf/User_files/3bbf4caa61fc5432.jpg

My Feedback (http://amitymama.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=feedback&Number=87108&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=)

I think the article is really summed up in the last paragraph,

"While establishing consequences might seem effective on the surface, children hear the underlying messages even more clearly. It tells them they are expected to misbehave, and that when they do, they can't even object to the punishment because it was "their choice." All of this goes disastrously against their continuum which prompts them to look to adults for the examples and expectations that will guide their behaviours."

If you come from the perspective that children are naturally social and want to live comfortably with others, then there is no question of their motivation to gradually show self-restraint and an understanding of acceptable behavior, keeping in mind their capabilities at a particular developmental level.

To try to apply this viewpoint to adults who never had the experience of this kind of parenting would be difficult. I don't really know what to say about that. But do our current consequences for these activities really deter people from engaging in them now?

For the child who is acting out in class what I have seen work very effectively is if the child's need is determined to be attention-getting, place the child's seat close to the teacher's desk, not as punishment, but so that the child feels very close to the teacher and involved in the learning going on in class.



<font color=blue>~~~waterlily~~~
You mean she actually slows down?</font color=blue>
http://www.wolfeboroonline.com/lily/pooped2.JPG
<font color=green>"No trumpets sound when the important decisions in our life are made. Destiny is made known silently."
~Agnes DeMille</font color=green>
<font color=black>feedback: http://amitymama.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=feedback&Number=99754&page=3&view=threaded&sb=5&o=0&part=</font color=black>

I think you have a great question! In my mind, if the child didn't respect the teacher, some need is not being met with the child. Maybe the teacher needs to do some one on one? Something is not settled with the child - home life, respect not shown to the child, etc... KWIM?

I've been avoiding the Babysmasher thing like a plague because I have very strong feelings about abusers. My childhood was riddled with abusers and I have worked hard my entire adult life to move past a lot of it - I just cannot read or seek out people who abuse because it causes serious unrest in me. Nightmares, crankiness, etc...

I do have a belief that children who are abused and don't have the innate to stop the chain, will continue and do horrendous unspeakable things. The sad thing is, they know consciously what they are doing is wrong, but they don't/can't stop. And they don't seek help unless they are caught.

Consequences for the people that abuse don't necessarily "fix" the problem. And maybe they can never be "fixed." It is quite sad.



<font color=blue> Becky </font color=blue>
WAHM to Ely, 2 years old - YIKES!)
Wife/Partner/Best Friend to John for almost 3 years
Surrogate Mom to 2 Big brown dogs and 3 Kitties
<font color=green> **And now....Pod-Mom to a little pea.....edd 4/02 </font color=green>

My thoughts are that most of the examples used in the article did not sound like the true use of natural or logical consequences. A lot of the examples did sound like punishment labeled "consequences". If you read Don Dinkmeyers books about STEP parenting (parenting young children for toddlers/preschoolers and the parents handbook for older children), it really focuses on how the consequence should be meaningful to the child and related to the incident, and the consequence should be simply explained, and not stated as "you did this wrong, so now you have to face the consequences" (I guess, using a blaming statement). He also emphasizes understanding the goal behind the misbehavior...that is one of the most important parts of the process. Personally, if I forget to think about why dd is misbehaving, I am much more likely to get angry and want to "punish" her through the consequences. But if I take that moment to examine why she is misbehaving, it really helps me understand and gain patience. And the focus is much more on positive reinforcement of positive behaviors (not bribing like the cookie example in the article).
So I guess I really like using consequences when they are properly used. Christy

Personally, I like the use of logical consequence. I read the article and I don't believe that setting up consequences is an invitation for a child to "misbehave". My oldest son has ADD and has anger management issues. I don't tell him that he can't get angry or he will get a consequence. However, we have taught him that there are acceptable ways to vent your anger. It is acceptable to go into his room and scream into his pillow. It is acceptable to punch said pillow if it helps release his anger. It is NOT acceptable to kick a hole in his door. When he did this, we took the door off the hinges - natural consequence. If you abuse something, it will be removed.

Not only do I feel that consequences are an effective tool, I feel that it is very important that a child be taught that life will have a myriad of consequences as they grow into adulthood. If you continually show up for work, you will be fired. If you treat a spouse badly, they will leave. If you drive fast and recklessly, you run the risk of getting in an accident. Etc etc etc...

I love my children unconditionally. I love my son when he kicks holes in the door. I love my son when he has an outburst that could peel wallpaper off the wall. However, society will not love him as I do if he continues to act in a manner where he believes that his behavior has no consequences. Parenting also involves raising your child in a manner that will allow him/her to be accepted by others they encounter in life.

I do not spank my children. I do not (except on very rare occasions because I am human) raise my voice to my children. I do not use punishments. I do not withhold affections. However, I kind of grow weary of all of the articles that basically say that all means of discipline should be avoided. They are very good at saying, "Don't do this" but not very good (in general) at saying, "Do this". Children need limits. They need to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If they act outside the boundaries of acceptability, there has to be some kind of action. If there isn't, then you'll be in for one heck of a ride when they reach the teenage years.

I'm not addressing minor issues like "stop crying and you'll get a cookie". I'm addressing issues like, "you can play at your friend's house but you must call for someone to come walk you home before you leave there". Mamas, there has been a man in our area recently that has tried to abduct a few children (unsuccessfully, Thank God). When my daughter decides to walk home by herself instead of calling, there will be a consequence because I can't afford for it to happen again.

Just my thoughts....

Lisa

http://www.babysewsoft.com
<font color=green>Blankets, instock and custom. Beeswax candles, Barefoot Books, Primal Elements, Burt's Bees, Vermont Soaps, and Jason Cosmetics.</font color=green>

Baby Sew Soft Feedback (http://amitymama.com/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=feedback&Number=87398&Search=true&Forum=feedback&Words=Baby%20Sew%20Soft&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=6months&Main=87398)

I have to disagree with most of it. I think the author used very poor examples of natural and logical consequences to make her point. I agree that many adults use the word "consequences" when they mean "punishment", but that does not negate the fact that correct use of consequences is effective. Life is full of choices, and choices have anticipated and unexpected consequences. To pretend otherwise, IMO, does children a disservice.

I want to add that I have had pretty extensive training in using natural and logical consequences. I was part of a Quality School team and I have studied the works of William Glasser and Rudolf Dreikers. I attended a workshop where Glasser himself spoke. There is more to Reality Therapy based discipline that doling out consequences. For example, in our house, we have Family Meetings, and in my classroom I had Class Meetings. Issues were discussed and solutions decided upon so that some things never became discipline issues. There are questioning strategies that you can use to help children see what the consequences are of their behavior: "What do you want? What are you doing? Is it working? If not, what could you do instead?" This takes into consideration the child's needs, but puts the responsibility back on THEM, rather than the parent or teacher.

Toddlers and preschoolers are another situation. With them, of course the adults need to control the environment and situations to a greater extent to avoid conflicts and frustration. Whereas the article said that children are social creatures and want to do the right thing, I disagree with that statement being applied to very young children. They are in fact, very egocentric. Until they develop a degree of empathy, they really DON'T care that their loud voice is distubing people who are reading, or that another child is crying because they grabbed a toy. What they do understand is that if they yell in the library or grab toys, the logical consequence is that they can't stay in that place. We should point out to them the effect their behavior has on others to help them develop empathy, but in the meantime, I see nothing wrong with removing them from situations where they are chosing to hurt or bother other people. This is not a time out. I wouldn't say "you were too loud in the library so you are in time out!" I would grab a few books, remove them to the lobby and say "it's hard for you to be quiet in the library. Until you are ready to be quiet, let's sit and read our books here."

Some examples of true consequences: In my preschool classroom, there is a sand & water table filled with rice. It is a favorite center. The only rules are "don't eat the rice" and "keep the rice in the tub". When a child dumps or throws the rice, they get a reminder. If it happens again, I will usually get the broom and dustpan and have they help me clean up the spilled rice (logical consequence). Most preschoolers LOVE to use the broom, so this is not necessarily a negative thing, but that's OK. The goal is not to make them suffer. Then, they have to choose a different center. No time out, just a removal from the rice table. I may say "since you are throwing rice, that tells me that you are done here, so you need to walk away from this table and chose another center." If I put them in time-out, and banned them from the rice table the next day and called it a "logical consequence", then that would be a punishment, misnamed a consequence. If they try to eat the raw rice, they usually gag, and try to spit it out. This is a natural consequence, and usually no further action is required from me.

One of the reasons true consequences are so hard to implement is that many adults don't have the guts to let children experience them. I'm not saying children should be made to needlessly suffer, but a little discomfort, like a mouthful of dry rice, or being cold because they chose not to wear a jacket, can help children make the connection between their choices and the consequences.

Another example: My ds insisted on taking a favorite toy to school and lost it. I comisserated with him, but I didn't replace the toy. Losing it was a natural consequence. If we constantly protect children from consequences, they will have a very unrealistic view of the world. I know parents who can't stand for their child to be unhappy for even a minute, so they constantly rescue them. Then you see situation like the high school teacher who failed a number of students who plagiarized their papers. The PARENTS called the school board members and insisted that the students be passed, the board told the teacher to pass them, and she resigned instead. IMO, failing was a logical consequence of cheating, and the parents did those kids no favors.

While I agree that punishments masquerading as consequences are not effective, I think that TRUE consequences, used in a matter-of-fact and non-judgemental way are an effective tool that I am proud to use as a teacher and a mom.

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!

Elissa, part-time preschool teacher and all-the-time mom to Ariel (6-20-88) Sammy, (6-22-95) and Benjy (8-14-98)

If we've had a transaction, please leave feedback here! (http://amitymama.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=feedback&Number=87637&page=2&view=threaded&sb=5&o=14&part=[/url>
<br)

I totally agree with Woodfarie! I don't think that this person is talking about "logical consequences"... at least not one that I would ever use in my house.

~~"Part of the pretense is the claim that these are "logical" consequences that simply follow from the child's choice: "Sorry, Joshua, you chose to come home late for dinner so you get nothing to eat until breakfast tomorrow." A more logical or natural consequence might be that Josh had to prepare his own dinner, or had to eat something reheated, but many parents want something more "painful." So Joshua goes to bed hungry."...~~
It goes on to talk about how these consequences would not be put on mom when she comes home late and that Joshua would see that.

I am sorry to feel a little emphatic about this but that is NOT logical, that is mean.

With my five year old we operate primarily by logical consequences. If he makes a mess he cleans it up... if he comes home late, he eats reheated food at the table alone because everyone else is done. There is no "pain" in that.

What Woodfarie says about having the consequence relate to the incedent and be meaningful to the child is what I strive to do. There are very few times in my parenting that I have thought "Hell, I want to get back at this kid." And so made up some sort of consequence that was more a punishment for the sake of 'pain'. I am not in any way saying that I never get angry, but most of the time I am more likely to get angry or hurt if I do not undersand or remember that he is just a kid! A child is a truly instinctual being, and if you give him consequences to his actions that is teaching him that he has to fix what he broke, as well as the fact that he may not want to break the same thing twice. Testing bounries is his job, and as long as I remember that, the need to "get back at him for misbehavior" is gone. I enjoy using logical consequences because they work for me and my child. It makes punishments rare, and learning opportunities frequent. That is my goal.

The over all effect of this artical seems to me as though he is attacking an entire frame of thinking for the people that abuse it. That is very much like cutting off welfare because there are ones that use the system. That, in and of itself, is illogical.

The well meaning case that children will adhear to what they should do is optomstic at best. We are not the only people that our children learn from. And even if we were, we are not consistant beings. The peer group they have at school, the group of freinds they hang out with, even the racial off-hand conment from the post man will teach them something. We are just their guides in this world of learning opportunities.

"Do not worry that your children never listen to you, worry that they are always watching you." Robart Fulgum

<font color=blue> Valerie Rose - Wife to Don, Mama to two beautiful Cancers - Alexander 7-20-96, and Cyan 7-13-01</font color=blue>

(Unschooling, bf, selected vax, ap, cd (yeah!), granola lovin' mama)