How Long Can You Put a Child in a Time Out

[judytrickett]

I know you were asking Judy, but maybe I can explain. I don't think anyone is attacking your position. If it works for you - GREAT!! Go for it!! But there are some instances where is does not work. I don't think Nannyde, Judy, or I (at least I know I have never) have ever said that we spank or swat our daycare kids. The law tells me I can't, so I don't. But the law does NOT tell me what I can or cannot do when it comes to the child(ren) a gave life to. Those are MY children and I am the one (along with their dad/my hubby) charged with raising them to be productive, caring, responsible adults.

The reason some of us may sound defensive is because the people who oppose the occasional swat, like to make the rest of us out to vile, vicious, evil creatures, instead of saying, "ok, you have your way, I have mine." And with these types of people, they are trying to have any and all forms of swatting outlawed and make us criminals for trying to discipline/teach our children. Basically, it is a way to take away our fundamental right to raise and parent our children as we see fit. Now, I am NOT talking about giving a child 5 or more hits, or hitting daily (or even weekly), or using a belt/brush/board/etc, I am talking about 1 swat, on the tushie (usually through a diaper or pull-up), once in a great while. Yet, that opinion gets the "I don't understand how you could have a license" comments (not pointed at any comment made on this thread, this is quoting comments made in general). Why? Because we have a different viewpoint?

Also, I think that for the DC providers who support a parent's right to swat or spank (AGAIN, NOT ABUSE), it is because many parents are so terrified to hit in any manner, they have lost control of their kids. My though is if you don't want to spank, swat, etc - great, but you better have an alternative that is effective for the child. It sounds like you do, so great, kudos, congrats. But if the alternatives do not work for some children, don't judge us as abusive. That's all we are saying.

Yeah. ALL THAT above in relation to MY kids! Well, said.

Now, if you take that above and combine it with the OP her questions basically asked what could she do to control this kids's behaviour because a mom asked her to give a child time outs and they were not working. She was asking for ALTERNATIVES and we gave them to her.

[nannyde]

Heather, I believe Judytrickett also thought a 45 minute time out was ridiculous -- for different reasons than you, obviously, but still ridiculous. Nowhere did she advocate a 45 minute timeout.

I don't think a 45 minute time out is rediculous for that crime. I've never been in that position but off the top of my head I would think 45 minutes would be a good amount of time to get the child completely calm. BUT... that would be phase ONE of the consequence to the kid. It may take 45 minutes to deal with the victim, de escalate the kids, restore order and get everyone back to their jazz and the phone call to the parent for a plan. So yeah... I might do 45 minutes. After the separation with nothing to do then we would get to the business of the consequence which would be way worse than 45 minutes of me time on a chair away from the kids.

I know my son's school does separation and head on the desk in the office detention room for way longer than that for high crimes. They don't use timers. I've been up to my kids school and in the office to know how that goes. Seen it with my own two eyes. There's no minute for every year going on in his school.

I can just see how that would work with the teachers. Some kid pummels another kid in the class and is sent to the office. The office does six/seven minutes of a kid sitting in time out... has a "why did you do it and what will you do next time conversation"... and then the kid appears right back in the class in a grand total of ten/twelve minutes? LMAO Yeah that would really work.

My objection with time out isn't the concept of removing the child and making him stay away for a time with nothing to do. My objection is the minute for every year. I don't know who came up with that idea but I can assure you the reason it became popular was because it's so fast. I can see it possibly working with children who are submissive and behave well for the majority of the time. I can see it working for really minor crimes like taking something from someone, excessive tattling, stalling on cleaning toys, or hoarding toys. What I can't see it working for is high crimes that involve out of control kids getting violent, disrepectful to adults, and having consistent dangerous behavior.

[nannyde]

[QUOTE=judytrickett;32444]

You've not been reading my responses. I said time out's DON'T work. I said a time out for a 6 yr old is especially ridiculous. I never said I would put a 6 yr old in a time out for ANY amount of time. That would be sheer stupidity if you ask me. Why would I do something that is ineffective?

And, I also said that I don't have behavioural problems in my daycare. Why? Because what I do WORKS and I don't have to lay a hand on them.

Don't you think the issue with time out is the TIME part of it?

[melissa ann]

IMO, timeouts don't work. I had to seperate dck and my own for a spell. When they hit, shove, kick someone I do put them at the kitchen table and have them do puzzles, color, etc. When the incident happens, I first tell them sit at the table, then I go to the "victim" to make sure they are okay. Then I go back to the other child and ask them what they did, why they did it, is it acceptable, would they want someone do that to them, etc. Then I give them the puzzles, coloring books, etc. After 30 mins or so, I will talk to them again, asking if they want to apologize to their "victim", behave if they want to join the other kids, etc.

[Daycare Mommy]

I just ended up terming a 6 yo boy and time out did nothing for him either. (I do use it on my younger kids btw so this isn't a personal attack on anyones methods) The only thing that made him even pause to think was removing privelidges.

I'd tell him that playing with/near the other children is a privelidge and he has to earn it by following the rules. If he doesn't he will spend a lot of time at the kitchen table working by himself. I'd keep the table activities pretty dull, and have more interesting stuff going on with the rest of the group. Like he'd get crayons and paper, while the rest of the group worked on a fun craft or painting. And like nanny said, snacks would be greener than usual as well. The idea is for him to realize he's missing out because he misbehaved; that he did it to himself.

If he can't play with the others without being violent, then I think that removing that privelidge of being around others is an appropriate consequence. If he's flinging toys all over the room, then the same. He is removed from the toy area and limited to crayons and paper.

I also respectfully disagree about making him your helper as a consequence (if that is what you meant). That is a reward over here. Now if he walks in the door and it's a new day and he has done nothing wrong today, then maybe that might help. It's something for him to feel good about, helping instead of hurting, but not after he's hit someone. But I'd be sure to involve the others who behave every day too. I wouldn't want just the squeaky wheel to get the grease.

Now if this (or whatever method you go with) ends up not working after a reasonable amount of time I'd term him. It's not fair to the other kids to have to live in fear and be smacked randomly like that. If the money really worries you perhaps the mom (since he's been booted before from other daycares) will look for just a spot just for him since it's hard to find a place for multiple kids like that. And he is older, perhaps a summer program for school-agers and then this fall a before and after program. Just a thought. Good luck with everything, Sahm2three.

[nannyde]

Now if this (or whatever method you go with) ends up not working after a reasonable amount of time I'd term him. It's not fair to the other kids to have to live in fear and be smacked randomly like that. If the money really worries you perhaps the mom (since he's been booted before from other daycares) will look for just a spot just for him since it's hard to find a place for multiple kids like that. And he is older, perhaps a summer program for school-agers and then this fall a before and after program. Just a thought. Good luck with everything, Sahm2three.

I think a common thing that happens when a parent has a sib group is that the lure of big check from all of them is what keeps the provider going with the one who is really bad. It's a heck of a leverage when they have so much of your income. Basically this kid holds the power to devestate this family financially. It's a very powerful position to be in.

The Mom has most likely learned that what keeps the kid IN a day care for any length of time is the pay from the other three. Having her JUST remove the child and put him into another situation will not work because she will have no leverage to get them to continue to deal with his stuff. The money from the other kids is her power in the relationship.

The Mom is always going to be able to find providers willing to take this big of a paycheck. I'm guessing these kids are state paid. If I'm correct then the salary to the provider for four kids (specially in the summer) is more than the Mom makes in her job. Essentially the Mom has an employee who makes more than she does. This is another power position. You can get a "deal with it... you make more than me... attitude".

The only time the Mom may be humble is when she might have to leave work TODAY to deal with the kid. That would result in a "put him in time out for the rest of the day" so that she doesn't have to deal with it TODAY. She's probably pretty certain she will find care for them quickly but not in an hour. She can go thru providers like paper towels because so many people are low on kids or out of work. It doesn't give much incentive to DEAL with the kid when you have that kind of money backing your switching care.

That's just my guess though.

[professionalmom]

Yesterday, I mentioned a link between soft discipline and crime. Then I got a PM from another poster, requesting studies and statistics on that. Well, I finished my degree in criminal justice over 5 years ago, so the research I did in college is a little aged. I stayed up WAY past my bedtime so I could do some quick searches to find recent data. I replied to the PM and got a response that I should post it here so everyone can see. So here it is:

"Ok. So now I finally got a couple of minutes to sit down and respond to your question about the research on spanking. First, I completed my degree in 2005, so the research I did back then is a little aged now. So, I thought I'd try to find current research. I found the following articles which cite specific studies:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

http://www.nospank.net/nytimes2.htm

http://www.savvydaddy.com/content/site/blog/0061/how-decide-whole-spanking-thing

Basically, the overall theme is that the US has some kind of agenda and refuses to print the pro-spanking research findings, but other countries, like Britain, eat up those results.

As for the people (police officers, correctional officers, etc) that I went to school with - almost every single one is pro-spanking. As many of them have told me, "If the parents don't want to teach them right from wrong, then I will when they get to me later." Please, please, please, go ahead and try to find a cop who doesn't believe in the occasional swat. Even if you can find 1, you will have to go through 100 to find that 1. I can almost guarantee it. After all, these are the people who deal with the out-of-control, never-had-to-deal-with-consequences thugs.

Here's another thought: maybe spanking is not perfect or ideal, but I think that when it is used properly, it is the lesser of the 2 evils (swat at age 3 vs. a 5 year sentence at age 17). I think the swat is more humane. But that's me. Of course, I would rather give my child a swat while (s)he is young than have my child tell me that (s)he was just raped in prison.

Also, try to remember back a few decades (if you're old enough, like I am), were you terrified to go to school because the kid you smirked at yesterday may be back with a gun? No! Schools were safe havens only a few decades ago. Not anymore. Thanks to a few school shootings (by students), there are metal detectors in schools. What is different between the students who kill their classmates in those school shootings and our fellow classmates from only a few years back? Access to guns? No, guns were even more accessible when I was a kid. More violence on tv? Maybe. But some say Tom & Jerry was too violent. So, we had violence on tv too. I suggest that the biggest trend is the change in society's view on corporal punishment. Once we went soft, the kids lost control. You don't need a study to know that, just look at the school shootings, the rise in adolescent violence, and age of the perpetrators (younger than ever).

Do we really need studies and statistics to tell us that spanking can be effective (when use correctly and in conjunction with other techniques) when we, our parents, and our grandparents were spanked, yet none of us would have even considered the idea of taking a gun to school? Are we so incapable of using common sense that we need to have studies to substantiate every thought or action, no matter what common sense tells us? We can't think for ourselves and we need a sheltered 20 year old college student to do a study and tell us what to think and believe?

One thing studies and statistics can't show you is the common sense of a situation. Plus, every study is backed ($$) and performed by someone with an agenda and a hypothesis that (s)he is trying to prove or disprove.

Lastly: none of us WANT to spank, but in some cases, it really is the responsible thing.

I'm sorry this is so long. It's way past my bedtime but I am passionate about a parent being able to discipline as (s)he sees fit as long as it doesn't cross the line into abuse. Anything else would be a further deprivation of fundamental rights (to parent as they see fit) in the US. And I don't think anyone should label a spanker an abuser. Nor do I think that anti-spankers are stupid. If they find a method that works - Great. Just respect my opinions as I respect yours."

Will someone else be able to find sites that show a link between an occasional tushie swat and future violence - sure. Because there are people out there who WANT to find a link so they do a study. But the study is flawed because the ones in control of the study are already biased. As one of the above mentioned articles explains, in those type of studies, there are no distinctions made between the occasional tushie swat and children being physically abused. They also do not control for other factors such as alcohol or drug abuse of the parent or other factors that may be more of a contributing factor to the future violence and criminal behavior.

But again, why do we need statistics and studies to tell us what to do? Adolescent violence has risen sharply since the "softer" "gentler" discipline techniques started to take root. Also, there are children committing crimes at much younger ages. Why? If spanking is the common cause, why weren't younger children committing violent acts 30-40 years ago?

For the purposes of everything I post on spanking in this thread, I AM ONLY referring to the OCCASIONAL SWAT ON THE TUSHIE, never beating, whooping, or abusing. There is a clear distinction between the 2. Spanking when done properly is only used for major infractions, used sparingly, never in anger, etc.

[professionalmom]

Some other posters have mentioned terming the problem child. This is definitely a solution for the provider. And I have had to do this myself. However, I believe that the child (general to all problem children) was probably a little problem, then provider #1 termed him, they go to provider #2 and she terms him, and the list goes on. It is a proven fact that children need stability and this type of daycare hopping due to behavior problems only serves to make the problem worse. Basically we are all passing the buck and the child is slipping through the cracks and the problem is never really addressed. I don't exactly have answers for these situations, I just thought I'd point out how "our solution" of terming is often contributing to making the situation worse for the next provider. Any ideas on how to actually FIX these problems? It appears that the OP has been trying different methods and they are not working. Are there agencies that deal specifically with behavior issues or agencies that can provider more one on one care?

[fctjc1979]

I can just see how that would work with the teachers. Some kid pummels another kid in the class and is sent to the office. The office does six/seven minutes of a kid sitting in time out... has a "why did you do it and what will you do next time conversation"... and then the kid appears right back in the class in a grand total of ten/twelve minutes? LMAO Yeah that would really work.

I see you aren't too fond of my interrogation technique. Perhaps you misunderstood. If you look at the list of sample questions I gave, you'll see that one of the last questions is asking the child what the consequenses of their actions should be. I think you missed the part that this question/answer session is PRE-consequence. Believe me, I have LOTS of techniques in my arsenal and will use any and all that I think are necessary. I was just trying to give the op some alternatives like she was asking for. But I totally agree with you that you can't just expect a kid to behave differently if they are never given any consequences for their actions.

[originalkat]

Because he is school age (6) and I assume the others are younger, I would have him sit at the table away from the others and give him productive to do such as puzzles, books to read, coloring etc... I would tell him that if he can not play nicely with the other children then he will have to play by himself. Then I would do some extra fun thing while he is over there that he misses out on. Make it look natural like you had always planned on doing it and you wish he had not have hit so he could participate.

After 45 min to an hour with his own activities away from the others I would give him the option to join the group. The older a child gets I dont really think the 1 minute thing would be very effective. 6 minuts isnt very long for a 6 year old. My 5 year old daughter spent 45 minutes in her room yesterday for throwing a fit. That type of behavior in unacceptable when they get to be school age. If I would have made her sit for 6 minutes she would not have learned that her behavior had a serious consequence. At the first sign of hitting, I would send him directly back to his own spot away from the other kids. Maybe he will catch on.

I dont know if everyone read all the posts, but from my understanding (and in quoting myself from one of the first posts), the child needs to play by himself because he cant play nice with others. I dont know what is more natural than that. We arent talking about 45 minutes with his head in the corner with a dunce cap on. He can have age approriate activities at the table for an amount of time that IS A CONSEQUENCE and then have a chance to rejoin the group. I do not think I would have a parent who disagreed with that. He is schoolage and hitting is rediculous at that age.
Anything short of a REAL consequence is not doing that little boy any good. I am not doing the child any favors by disciplining so softly that the child barely notices or cares (ie 6 minuts in time-out). I am only setting him up for failure.

[fctjc1979]

I see you aren't too fond of my interrogation technique. Perhaps you misunderstood. If you look at the list of sample questions I gave, you'll see that one of the last questions is asking the child what the consequenses of their actions should be. I think you missed the part that this question/answer session is PRE-consequence. Believe me, I have LOTS of techniques in my arsenal and will use any and all that I think are necessary. I was just trying to give the op some alternatives like she was asking for. But I totally agree with you that you can't just expect a kid to behave differently if they are never given any consequences for their actions.

Crap, I just went back and looked at that post I'm talking about and that question didn't make it on the list. It's the last question on the list on the sheet of paper I give to parents to explain what kind of discipline I use. It must have got missed when I copied it over. Sorry about that. No wonder you didn't catch that.

[judytrickett]

Some other posters have mentioned terming the problem child. This is definitely a solution for the provider. And I have had to do this myself. However, I believe that the child (general to all problem children) was probably a little problem, then provider #1 termed him, they go to provider #2 and she terms him, and the list goes on. It is a proven fact that children need stability and this type of daycare hopping due to behavior problems only serves to make the problem worse. Basically we are all passing the buck and the child is slipping through the cracks and the problem is never really addressed. I don't exactly have answers for these situations, I just thought I'd point out how "our solution" of terming is often contributing to making the situation worse for the next provider. Any ideas on how to actually FIX these problems? It appears that the OP has been trying different methods and they are not working. Are there agencies that deal specifically with behavior issues or agencies that can provider more one on one care?

Professionalmom.....I think I love you. Great, great post you put up earlier about the studies etc. HUGE difference coming from someone who has a degree in criminal studies and childhood. Love it!

Your quote above.....

I completely agree it's passing the buck. I completely agree it just hurts society as a whole when these kids aren't helped. I agree, I agree, I agree. BUT, it goes back to the whole problem of what the child NEEDS in relation to discipline and what is societally 'appropriate' and not frowned upon combined with any stupid state or provincial or federal laws pertaining to discipline both at home and daycare.

So, while I agree passing the buck does not solve the problem I think in a lot of cases termination is a self-preservation technique. We feel over and over again that we are swimming upstream because our hands are tied as to the level of discipline we are allowed to employ. And let's face it - kids like this need a much higher punishment - one that fits the crime. And, if we are not allowed to administer that level of punishment AND we are not seeing that level of punishment come from home and the parents then we have to do what we have to do - protect the GROUP. We simply can not have a kid in care being violent towards other kids simply because we don't want to pass the buck. It's a position of having NO choice. That kid becomes a financial risk to our daycare when other parents get sick and tired of sending their child to daycare only to be abused by another kid.

It's sad all the way around. And it's our willy nilly position on soft, gentle discipline that got us here.

[professionalmom]

Professionalmom.....I think I love you. Great, great post you put up earlier about the studies etc. HUGE difference coming from someone who has a degree in criminal studies and childhood. Love it!

Your quote above.....

I completely agree it's passing the buck. I completely agree it just hurts society as a whole when these kids aren't helped. I agree, I agree, I agree. BUT, it goes back to the whole problem of what the child NEEDS in relation to discipline and what is societally 'appropriate' and not frowned upon combined with any stupid state or provincial or federal laws pertaining to discipline both at home and daycare.

So, while I agree passing the buck does not solve the problem I think in a lot of cases termination is a self-preservation technique. We feel over and over again that we are swimming upstream because our hands are tied as to the level of discipline we are allowed to employ. And let's face it - kids like this need a much higher punishment - one that fits the crime. And, if we are not allowed to administer that level of punishment AND we are not seeing that level of punishment come from home and the parents then we have to do what we have to do - protect the GROUP. We simply can not have a kid in care being violent towards other kids simply because we don't want to pass the buck. It's a position of having NO choice. That kid becomes a financial risk to our daycare when other parents get sick and tired of sending their child to daycare only to be abused by another kid.

It's sad all the way around. And it's our willy nilly position on soft, gentle discipline that got us here.

Judy, I love you too! You are so right. We do need to term this kids to protect ourselves, our children, our DC kids, and our business. When I have had to term a kid for this type of behavior, I was lucky enough to have a parent I could explain the situation to with the parent gets upset. I suggested a provider that can give one on one care. I just wish I knew of some agencies that I could refer these parents to so the problem can actually get solved. And yes, our hands are very tied. Sadly, these kids will go from provider to provider, never having stability, then going to school and getting put on drugs to control their behavior. What's sad is that for some of these problem children a swat on their tushie once in a great while, coupled with other techniques, could have solved the problem without medication. But I guess it's more humane to drug a children into compliance than to give him/her a swat once in a while.

[nannyde]

I see you aren't too fond of my interrogation technique. Perhaps you misunderstood. If you look at the list of sample questions I gave, you'll see that one of the last questions is asking the child what the consequenses of their actions should be. I think you missed the part that this question/answer session is PRE-consequence. Believe me, I have LOTS of techniques in my arsenal and will use any and all that I think are necessary. I was just trying to give the op some alternatives like she was asking for. But I totally agree with you that you can't just expect a kid to behave differently if they are never given any consequences for their actions.

Oh no I love your technique. Really I do.

I was talking only about the minute per age time out.

[fctjc1979]

Oh no I love your technique. Really I do.

I was talking only about the minute per age time out.

Sorry, my mistake. I've been making a lot of those lately. I would blame it on pregnancy hormones, but I'm not sure absentmindedness and wrong-thinking is a pregnancy symptom.::::