Throwing Toys Over The Gate

[kendallina]

Reading this thread got me to thinking. I think the biggest thing that causes discord on this board, is the differences in folks.

If you all will honestly look at the threads, you will see what I have been seeing......we have providers that have been "schooled" by higher education offering their opinions. And then we have providers that have been "schooled" by real life.

There are good things to both. I think if both types of providers would try and consider the other point of view some,there would be less discord.

That said, you have to consider this:

Non-degree folks, will never have your text book knowledge.

Degreed folks that have never raised their own children, will never have the knowledge of someone that has raised children.

I personally do not have that "degree", never wanted one. I became what I wanted to all my life. A MOM!!!

I read a lot of child rearing books as my DD's were growing. However, not ONE book, prepared me for this job, as much as having raised my own kids did.

Just food for thought.

This has been brought up before and yes, there is a huge difference in the thinking of those that are educated in child development and those that are not. Remember, many of those that are educated in child development also have years of real life 'schooling' as well.

Different providers have very different philosophies in working with children. Some seek to control their behaviors so that their individuality doesn't get in the way. These providers often don't want to see children's individuality and believe that it serves children best to squelch their natural desire for exploration and inquisitiveness.

Others seek to harness children's individuality to help them grow and succeed in life. They understand and can even appreciate every little stage that comes with being a child, even if it can sometimes provide challenges to the provider. They see discipline as a way of teaching children, not punishing them.

I'm not trying to imply that these two philosophies follow the lines of 'textbook' or 'non-textbook' providers exactly, they certainly don't.

That's just how I see it.

[SandeeAR]

This has been brought up before and yes, there is a huge difference in the thinking of those that are educated in child development and those that are not. Remember, many of those that are educated in child development also have years of real life 'schooling' as well.

Different providers have very different philosophies in working with children. Some seek to control their behaviors so that their individuality doesn't get in the way. These providers often don't want to see children's individuality and believe that it serves children best to squelch their natural desire for exploration and inquisitiveness.

Others seek to harness children's individuality to help them grow and succeed in life. They understand and can even appreciate every little stage that comes with being a child, even if it can sometimes provide challenges to the provider. They see discipline as a way of teaching children, not punishing them.

These two philosophies don't fall exactly along the lines of 'textbook or non-textbook' providers, as I know the education and experience of only a very few providers on these forums.

I'm not trying to imply that these two philosophies follow the lines of 'textbook' or 'non-textbook' providers exactly, they certainly don't.

That's just how I see it.

And based on that reply, my guess is you are a textbook provider with a degree. I insisted that both my DD's get degrees. However, one is well versed in the real life and one is not. The one that is well versed in real life, gets along with just about anyone. The other does not.

People may like it or not, but real life schooling carries a lot of weight in the world.

[Crystal]

Reading this thread got me to thinking. I think the biggest thing that causes discord on this board, is the differences in folks.

If you all will honestly look at the threads, you will see what I have been seeing......we have providers that have been "schooled" by higher education offering their opinions. And then we have providers that have been "schooled" by real life.

There are good things to both. I think if both types of providers would try and consider the other point of view some,there would be less discord.

That said, you have to consider this:

Non-degree folks, will never have your text book knowledge.

Degreed folks that have never raised their own children, will never have the knowledge of someone that has raised children.

I personally do not have that "degree", never wanted one. I became what I wanted to all my life. A MOM!!!

I read a lot of child rearing books as my DD's were growing. However, not ONE book, prepared me for this job, as much as having raised my own kids did.

Just food for thought.

You left out a group. Those of us with the "textbook knowledge" AND experience. I have been working with children and families for 14 years. I have also been a parent for 20 years. I went back to school BECAUSE of my experience and knowing that I could do so much more for children and families if I truly understood and practiced DAP.

One other thing, obatianing "textbook knowledge" also means that you are required to gain "experience" in a variety of programs while you student teach. I have been in MANY programs, so I have seen and been mentored by teachers/providers who truly have a vast amount of experience and "textbook knowledge" and they are the people I aspire to be like.

[SandeeAR]

Ok, I give up. I was trying to get people to try and look at the other side of things. To TRY and give each other a chance. To let everyone's views be seen, not just those with the "textbook" knowledge.

I give up, regardless of what the "textbook" says, I know I am a good provider, b/c my kids are well taken care of, love me and I love them. My parents are happy and we don't have even a very small amount of the problems I see on this board.

I give up trying to keep the peace. Let the battle rage on.

[Symphony]

You left out a group. Those of us with the "textbook knowledge" AND experience. I have been working with children and families for 14 years. I have also been a parent for 20 years. I went back to school BECAUSE of my experience and knowing that I could do so much more for children and families if I truly understood and practiced DAP.

One other thing, obatianing "textbook knowledge" also means that you are required to gain "experience" in a variety of programs while you student teach. I have been in MANY programs, so I have seen and been mentored by teachers/providers who truly have a vast amount of experience and "textbook knowledge" and they are the people I aspire to be like.

This is what I was thinking too. I have done child care for 10 years, I have (soon to be) 5 children, I have a Master's degree in Child Development, and I have a teaching endorsement for birth to 5. My six years of school had me in countless classrooms observing textbook knowledge in action and working!

I'm not ignorant or arrogant enough to believe that the textbook way is the only way that will work with children, or that the same method will work for every child. I do feel like often times (more often than not) on this board, any "textbook" ideas are laughed out the door.



What I would like to know is what the continuing education regulations are in your states? In mine, we are required to take 30 hours of child care and development courses every two years. All of these courses are researched based and what are referred to as textbook...do you experience only followers just roll your eyes through these trainings?

[jen]

This is what I was thinking too. I have done child care for 10 years, I have (soon to be) 5 children, I have a Master's degree in Child Development, and I have a teaching endorsement for birth to 5. My six years of school had me in countless classrooms observing textbook knowledge in action and working!

I'm not ignorant or arrogant enough to believe that the textbook way is the only way that will work with children, or that the same method will work for every child. I do feel like often times (more often than not) on this board, any "textbook" ideas are laughed out the door.



What I would like to know is what the continuing education regulations are in your states? In mine, we are required to take 30 hours of child care and development courses every two years. All of these courses are researched based and what are referred to as textbook...do you experience only followers just roll your eyes through these trainings?

I have completed my Bachelors in Community Psychology and am beginning my Masters in Special Education with specialization EBD. I have taken all the course work in prepration to further my education in Applied Behavioral Analysis as well. As a licensed provider, continuing education is a requirement in MN. At the moment I don't remember the minimum amount of hours required, I believe it is 8 per year? I know I should know that, but since the great majority of my course work qualifies, I don't pay much attention to the min.

I have also been a provider for 10 years. I have NEVER had a parent leave because they were unhappy; in fact, the average length of time a family stays in my care is 7.2 years.

I've been a parent for 16 years; kids ages 16, 11, and 7. My 7 year old qualifies for the gifted program and my 11 yo has ADHD so we run the gammet around here.

It is my education and experience that allows me to pull information from multiple sources, review it critically, and take the best of that information and apply it to my program...which is why I have happy kids and happy parents.

[jen]

OH...I really want to add...

I do not think that having a degree in and of itself makes anyone a better provider. It is just one small part of an individual. I think we all know people who were born to do this that haven't stepped foot in a classroom since high school and some who live in classroom who can't see the forest for the trees.

I just don't want anyone to ever think that I believe education makes a "better" provider.

[kendallina]

It is my education and experience that allows me to pull information from multiple sources, review it critically, and take the best of that information and apply it to my program...which is why I have happy kids and happy parents.

Yes, I agree. I could not provide the quality program that my parents love without both my education and experience.

And, Jen for your average time that a family spends in your care to be over 7 years is awesome! Keep up the good work.

[Blackcat31]

What I would like to know is what the continuing education regulations are in your states? In mine, we are required to take 30 hours of child care and development courses every two years. All of these courses are researched based and what are referred to as textbook...do you experience only followers just roll your eyes through these trainings?

In my state childcare providers are required to take, I think like 6 hours of training each year. I am not positive of the exact number because I always seem to be involved in some sort of schooling that far exceeds the minimum requirments. I can say that I personally know providers who have taken some really poor excuses for trainings just to meet the requirements.

I do think the standard requirements for the amount of training and what type of trainings should be tougher than what it is now though.

[nannyde]

This discussion is crazy and one of the reasons that I rarely respond to discipline threads on the board. I cannot imagine making a boundary for no reason. The issue has nothing to do with getting close to a gate. The issue has to do with a 1-year old doing a very developmentally appropriate activity of throwing toys over a gate, something that helps him learn cause and effect. The boundaries that some providers make for children are so needlessly stifling and just don't seem to make any sense. So, if you create a tape boundary then you are creating several new issues that the provider has to deal with...what if he puts a foot on the tape, what if he drops a toy inside the taped line, what if he has a great pitching arm and gets the toy over the gate anyways (we've all known plenty of toddlers who can do this). It's just creating more issues for the provider and for the child to have to worry about. I would hate to have to walk on eggshells at some of our providers houses.

The suggestions of giving him a laundry basket to drop toys into is a great idea. Also, if he continues to drop items over the gate, then it's over the gate and gone and he can watch it from his side of the gate. Cause and effect. He'll soon no longer drop the toys that he really wants and soon he'll be done with this stage.

And, yes, many of the suggestions for how to work with children on this board deserve a nice little eye roll so here you go . Call it disrespectful or whatever you all would like, but I would rather be disrespectful to providers who don't care enough about their children to educate themselves on proper ways of working with children then to sit back here while inappropriate advice gets doled out time and time again.

One thing I've learned on these boards is that "developmentally appropriate" is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

Kids can learn the concept of cause and effect without dropping toys over a gate. I know it from seventeen years of child care experience. I'm not worried about them GETTING the concept because they have SO many opportunities to understand this when they are doing floor based play in designated safe areas that are chocked full of fabulous toys in a ton of space.

I have one hundred and fifty square foot PER CHILD in my home. I KNOW from years of experience that sectioning off five square foot in the transitional areas on both sides of the gates does not in ANY way shape or form affect the development of the children. Take that to the bank.

You look at the glass half empty. I look at it half full. I think giving them 150 square foot PER CHILD is a great comprimise to the five square foot they collectively loose for a safety measure that my staff and I NEED to keep them safe and to keep our equipment safe.

I don't allow them to throw ANYTHING inside the house. We have a NO THROW rule inside the house. I don't allow them to drop toys once they are in communal areas and playing with group toys. When they are small infants and have their own play yards they can take the infant toys and drop them all they like. Once they join the group in group play the toys available to them are NOT for throwing. They could harm the other children and they could harm the equipment.

If a child puts their toes on the area that is designated a "by invite" only area we remove them from that area.

If a child throws a toy because they have a "good arm" then we tell them they can't throw toys in the house. We let them know we don't allow it and expect them to abide by no throwing toys. It's dangerous and hard on the equipment. It's like any other NO that comes their way. They learn not to do it and we move onto the next thing.

It's not complicated. My house... my equipment... my business... my livlihood.... my nurse's license.... my state registration.... my rules.

Remember that these kids have full lives outside of day care. They can learn the "drop toys over the gate" at home with their parents. We are not charged with teaching every single aspect of cause and effect while they are in our care.

Some how some way each and every kid I care for learns cause and effect even "WITHOUT drop toys over the gate" in my home. I KNOW I can't provide EVERYTHING .... every experience... the child needs for "developmentally appropriate". They have parents and their own home to learn skills too. I trust that whatever small piece of each skill they can't execute here that they will be able to do that in their own lives along the way.

[kendallina]

One thing I've learned on these boards is that "developmentally appropriate" is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

Kids can learn the concept of cause and effect without dropping toys over a gate. I know it from seventeen years of child care experience. I'm not worried about them GETTING the concept because they have SO many opportunities to understand this when they are doing floor based play in designated safe areas that are chocked full of fabulous toys in a ton of space.

I have one hundred and fifty square foot PER CHILD in my home. I KNOW from years of experience that sectioning off five square foot in the transitional areas on both sides of the gates does not in ANY way shape or form affect the development of the children. Take that to the bank.

You look at the glass half empty. I look at it half full. I think giving them 150 square foot PER CHILD is a great compromise to the five square foot they collectively loose for a safety measure that my staff and I NEED to keep them safe and to keep our equipment safe.

I don't allow them to throw ANYTHING inside the house. We have a NO THROW rule inside the house. I don't allow them to drop toys once they are in communal areas and playing with group toys. When they are small infants and have their own play yards they can take the infant toys and drop them all they like. Once they join the group in group play the toys available to them are NOT for throwing. They could harm the other children and they could harm the equipment.

If a child puts their toes on the area that is designated a "by invite" only area we remove them from that area.

If a child throws a toy because they have a "good arm" then we tell them they can't throw toys in the house. We let them know we don't allow it and expect them to abide by no throwing toys. It's dangerous and hard on the equipment. It's like any other NO that comes their way. They learn not to do it and we move onto the next thing.

It's not complicated. My house... my equipment... my business... my livlihood.... my nurse's license.... my state registration.... my rules.

Remember that these kids have full lives outside of day care. They can learn the "drop toys over the gate" at home with their parents. We are not charged with teaching every single aspect of cause and effect while they are in our care.

Some how some way each and every kid I care for learns cause and effect even "WITHOUT drop toys over the gate" in my home. I KNOW I can't provide EVERYTHING .... every experience... the child needs for "developmentally appropriate". They have parents and their own home to learn skills too. I trust that whatever small piece of each skill they can't execute here that they will be able to do that in their own lives along the way.

This is so fraught with misinformation it is difficult to respond to. When I speak of what is developmentally appropriate, I am speaking of developmentally appropriate practices, a term used by the National Association for the Education of Young Children to describe an array of principles that includes research-based knowledge of child development. It is not in the eye of the beholder. http://www.naeyc.org/dap/core

Of course children will learn the concept of cause an effect even if you don't allow them to drop toys over the gate. But, really, how difficult of a problem is this. The toys goes over the gate, the child watches it for the rest of the day or however long and then you and the child put it back in its correct spot at the end of the day.

I would like to say that I am happy for you and how well this approach works for your business. But I am not. I think your view of child development is very old school (and I imagine you are proud that it is) and has no basis in research and what we know about how children grow and develop. I am sorry for the children in your care.

And with that, I am signing off these forums. I don't think I have any desire to be a part of a group of people that applaud behavior like Nannyde's (and others) and I have no desire to continue to support a site that allows her ideas to be put forth in a blog.

In the past several days there has been a lot of bullying of other members (not by nannyde, but from others) and it really makes me wonder who your families are and what they would think of you if they were to see your behavior toward fellow professionals. I can no longer respect the opinions of many of the providers here, which to me, means it's time for me to sign off and be done.

I hope that providers choose instead to look at sites like NAEYC for their child development information.

[Cat Herder]

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the NAEYC is but one of many groups selling their theory's???

Why does it always come down to throwing colors????:confused::confused:

Go team blue!!

[JenNJ]

Any provider or parent who practices solely on one line of thinking and shuts out all others is closing out an entire world of ideas. We should always be open to new ideas and ways of thinking in every area of our lives. Anything else is boring!

[Crystal]

Well, I for one have NOT based my program on one theory, and really you should not assume that I stick with one theory.

BTW, DAP is not neccessarily a theory, but a set of standards that Developmentally Appropriate programs practice.

I do however value Erikson, Vygotsky and Piaget. I have gleened bits and pieces from each of their theories, as well as others, and have found they work fabulously well together.

I recommend that everyone does some reading and discover the vast array of CHILD DEVELOPMENT theories out there....you may be surprised at what you actually learn about CHILDREN..

[Crystal]

Any provider or parent who practices solely on one line of thinking and shuts out all others is closing out an entire world of ideas. We should always be open to new ideas and ways of thinking in every area of our lives. Anything else is boring!

The more I think about this the more HILARIOUS I think it is. I mean, really. Isn't shutting out the idea of DAP, which is what the majority of the posters in this thread have done, wether in this thread or in others, exactly the type of thing in which you are referring too? ::

Oh, but of course, it's just me, huh?