3 Year Old Can't Put Own Shoes On

[permanentvacation]

I agree that it's probably just that the parents aren't making him put his own shoes on. They are doing it for him, so he makes his little pathetic attempt when you tell him to do so himself, then he fusses and expects you to do the work for him.

I would tell everyone to put their shoes on. When it's time to walk out of the door, tell him to carry his shoes outside (so he can put them on while outside). If he refuses to carry them, then I would pick up his shoes, then I would have him go outside and make him sit on the porch not being allowed to play until he gets his shoes on himself. That way, the other children are not losing outdoor time because of him, but he will see the other kids playing and having fun while he isn't allowed to do so until he puts his shoes on. I would continuously tell him, "They put their shoes on, so they can go play. As soon as you put your shoes on, you can go play. Now put your shoes on so you can go play." It will be more work on you. I'm sure he'll throw a fit, try to run off the porch to play barefoot, etc. But it will show him that he won't get away with not doing what is expected of him. And that since the other children did do what was expected of them, they can have their 'reward' of going outside to play.

[auntymimi]

My 18 month old has been putting shoes on by herself for 3 months now!

This. It's attention seeking behavior on dcb part. He's been taught that he's helpless and HAS to have an adult to "help" him. It's part of what makes him special in his mind. I would just use natural consequences, no shoes no play, sit there until you can figure it out. Then I'd ignore it until he's done. Make a big deal about it when he finally does it " I knew you could do it! I bet you feel really proud of yourself! High 5!" Or whatever.

[Blackcat31]

Old thread ladies....

It was brought to light again by a poster who felt the need to tell all the providers that posted how awful they are....

[Rockgirl]

Old thread ladies....

It was brought to light again by a poster who felt the need to tell all the providers that posted how awful they are....

I noticed....just felt the need to speak up as to why we shouldn't be "let go" of our positions. Not sure who would be letting most of us go, as a great number of us are self employed.

[permanentvacation]

Personally, I believe many parents should be 'let go' of their rights to be parents. Too many parents nowadays don't want to do ANYTHING to/with/for/ or about their children. Many parents want us to provide breakfast, lunch, snacks, and dinner! They don't ever even want to feed their children! They also want us to teach their children everything. My sister even had a daycare child who got picked up from her daycare every night at 6:30 pm and her mother wanted my sister to give the child dinner and than a BATH too! She didn't even want to have to bathe her child! I have literally told a couple of people that they should just give me child support and leave their child here for me to raise and they can stop by when and if they like to visit their child!

So many parents of this generation have absolutely no interest in being a parent! Now wonder us daycare providers have such a hard time with so many of the kids. So many children have no parental guidance at all at home. Many children are allowed to do anything they want as long as they don't 'bother' the adult in the home.

No wonder us providers struggle so much to get the kids to do things they should be able to do with no problems. Their parents don't teach them or guide them, they in-able them by doing everything for them so their children will get out of their hair faster. However, us providers know that the child should be quite capable of doing certain tasks and we care enough to take the time to work with them, teach them how to do things, and then don't allow the child to give up on him/herself while working to be successful at accomplishing their new goals. By doing so, we providers are helping the children gain self-respect, sense of self-worth, confidence, and pride. However, the parents who don't do so are teaching their child that they are incapable of learning, lowering their self-respect, sense of self-worth, confidence, and pride.

So, no, us providers shouldn't be 'let go', we should be thanked and appreciated for taking the time to teach, love, feed, bathe (in some cases), build the self-esteem of, etc. your children that so many parents can't be bothered with.

[mommiebookworm]

I tried a different tactic with two moms recently. Both of their kids are starting preschool next week.
As soon as i knew that they enrolled in preschool. I told them, "Did you know that the preschool teacher won't help them put on their shoes/ put on their jacket/ wipe their own bottom?" I then told them that I was going to let their child "practice" these things. So that when preschool comes it won't be difficult.

[nannyde]

Not a hill I'm willing to climb. When getting a crew ready to go out it's easier to put on the outdoor gear. I would gladly put his shoes on him and leave the skill training to his parents.

They don't have to learn everything at daycare. They have parents as their primary teacher.

[Rockgirl]

Here they are allowed to take shoes off only if they are able to put them back on. Of course sometimes a child will insist that they are able to do it, then can't. That's when they can bring them out, sit, and try.

[daycare]

Old thread ladies....

It was brought to light again by a poster who felt the need to tell all the providers that posted how awful they are....

I soooo remember this thread.....

don't feed the trolls

[Rockgirl]

I soooo remember this thread.....

don't feed the trolls

I see your point. But what about the thread in the parents' forum about the provider's paid vacation? It is even older, and had a big revival last month, with several regulars posting and defending their right to a paid vacation (which I agree with). Why one and not the other? Not trying to rock the boat--just asking.

I've noticed sometimes when a thread is posted asking a common question, links are posted to similar threads. This is super helpful--I've learned a lot from going back and reading the older threads. However, if someone does post in one with their perspective, it's pointed out that the thread is old. So is it better to post a question, hoping to discuss something previously discussed, or just go back and read the older threads, but not post in them, since they are old? Lol, I'm hoping that made some sense!

[Blackcat31]

I see your point. But what about the thread in the parents' forum about the provider's paid vacation? It is even older, and had a big revival last month, with several regulars posting and defending their right to a paid vacation (which I agree with). Why one and not the other? Not trying to rock the boat--just asking.

I've noticed sometimes when a thread is posted asking a common question, links are posted to similar threads. This is super helpful--I've learned a lot from going back and reading the older threads. However, if someone does post in one with their perspective, it's pointed out that the thread is old. So is it better to post a question, hoping to discuss something previously discussed, or just go back and read the older threads, but not post in them, since they are old? Lol, I'm hoping that made some sense!

I ONLY post that it's an old thread when someone quotes an old post in the thread. It's a high probability that the poster wont reply so I like to make sure the person who quoted doesn't expect an answer.

Ypu'll also notice that most of the time that I point out an old thread, I say "Relevant info but old thread"

The only time I will say not to feed the trolls is when the posted that revived the thread did so with the intent to stir up drama.... if anyone that revives an old thread with that intention it's not only rude but childish too...

The other thread you are referring to about provider paid vacations usually has new posters asking new questions so it's quite a bit different than other revived threads in my opinion.

I also agree that old threads ARE informative and helpful and I try to add links when I can (Michael is really good at doing that too) but it isn't always helpful since not all threads/topics/posts are the same. kwim?

If an old thread does get dramatic it usually just gets locked.

So in response to your actual question... yes! Post in whatever threads you wish to post in but be warned that feeding the trolls (negative posters/pot stirrers) is done so at the risk of getting a thread locked down. :-)

[Rockgirl]

I ONLY post that it's an old thread when someone quotes an old post in the thread. It's a high probability that the poster wont reply so I like to make sure the person who quoted doesn't expect an answer.

Ypu'll also notice that most of the time that I point out an old thread, I say "Relevant info but old thread"

The only time I will say not to feed the trolls is when the posted that revived the thread did so with the intent to stir up drama.... if anyone that revives an old thread with that intention it's not only rude but childish too...

The other thread you are referring to about provider paid vacations usually has new posters asking new questions so it's quite a bit different than other revived threads in my opinion.

I also agree that old threads ARE informative and helpful and I try to add links when I can (Michael is really good at doing that too) but it isn't always helpful since not all threads/topics/posts are the same. kwim?

If an old thread does get dramatic it usually just gets locked.

So in response to your actual question... yes! Post in whatever threads you wish to post in but be warned that feeding the trolls (negative posters/pot stirrers) is done so at the risk of getting a thread locked down. :-)

That all makes total sense. I didn't think about people trying to get a response from an op, not realizing it was years ago. And I can see that this thread about the shoes was revived in order to stir things up. I shouldn't let those comments bother me, but sometimes they do.

And I hope my comment didn't come off snarky--it wasn't meant that way at all. I've been wanting to ask that question for awhile, and it just seemed like a good opening for it.

[Blackcat31]

That all makes total sense. I didn't think about people trying to get a response from an op, not realizing it was years ago. And I can see that this thread about the shoes was revived in order to stir things up. I shouldn't let those comments bother me, but sometimes they do.

And I hope my comment didn't come off snarky--it wasn't meant that way at all. I've been wanting to ask that question for awhile, and it just seemed like a good opening for it.

Not at all!

I am glad you asked "publically" ....most people PM as if the responses are all personal and direct at them.

I happily reply to registered and unregistered posters alike if their posts are genuine. If they just want to add negativity they usually get the replies they deserve.

It used to bother me too when posters commented rudely but I've learned over the years WHO actually owns that issue.

[Rockgirl]

It used to bother me too when posters commented rudely but I've learned over the years WHO actually owns that issue.

So true--I need to remember that!

[Josiegirl]

I soooo remember this thread.....

don't feed the trolls

It's only Wednesday and you're taking all the fun out of it.
Sorry. Some posts are just so rude I have to speak up.