Article

I think there's more to this story than meets the eye. Kids who are infrequent and/or reluctant attenders usually have further underlying issues - I could take a whole lot of guesses... but yeah, I think there's a lot more to this than "I didn't want the fun to end." Clearly he doesn't enjoy going to school which would indicate that he's struggling in forming positive relationships with other students and teachers... the mother mentioned that he's "mischievous" -- if this is the kind of kid who's regularly getting in trouble at school, then yeah... there's a lot more going on here. This kid needs counselling. (-_-)

I think it's more like kids are pretty darn smart. I certainly never admitted the real reasons for all the stupid things I did half the time. And lookit how well I turned out now! ....

Come back when you've got kids of your own, and we'll see if you feel the same way then.

Pete seriously suggest your personal feelings behind things instead of repeting that mantra. USE your experience to enlighten us or dont bother with that response thats kinda like saying I KNOW AND YOU DONT KNOW.. YOU as a parent with YOUR knowledge could ACTUALLY HELP those who are not yet parents, as you should know spreading wisdom prevents people making the same mistakes you have, it implants the tools neccessary for future parents. Stop with the mantra and provide oppinions.

I woulda taken the bed apart and made him take the headboard to school.

Guy 1: "I taught the movie was crap"
Guy2: "I taught it was good"
Guy 1: "Do you have kids?"
Guy 2: "No"
Guy 1: "Come back to me when you have kids and tell me that.."
Guy 2:

Of course you don't understand, you don't have kids of your own.

And it's "thought," not "taught." Ya mook.

I taught I thaw a puddytat.

Getting in trouble at school in Mexico would mean automatic suspension. Being that they have zero tolerance in Mexico. If a kid misbehaves he or she is sent home no question about it for a week or a month. There is no in school suspension or anything like that. So if he really did not want to go to school all he had to do was be disruptive and not just mischevious. I agree that he does need counseling, but only on what he did.

I don't think I ever hated school. I think I just always liked doing other things better.

FREEFALLL666: I think Pete's making a fair point. He's not asking me to specifically change my mind or to agree with his opinion, but merely remind me (and some of the rest of us) that understanding children is different when you don't have your own.

I would say I have a better/different understanding of children because I work with them compared to people who don't work with or have children - but at the same time, teaching kids is different from parenting. Some aspects I imagine must be similar, but overall there are many factors that would make teaching and parenting quite different. So I can appreciate what Pete's saying to me.

Who knows... my opinion on this matter might completely change after I become a parent.

When I was at uni doing my post-graduate Diploma in Education, I wrote a paper where I vehemently disagreed with streamed classes - pointing out the pros and cons but concluding that it was ultimately a bad thing. That paper garnered a High Distinction and as a result I qualified to undertake an Honours Thesis (which I declined). Now that was back in the day when I hadn't started proper teaching yet... I was still just studying the theories of education and done some prac teaching. Since I started actual teaching I've come to completely disagree with my paper and I now actually support streamed classes!

So yeah, I can concede that I could change my stance on this after I become a parent. I might or I might not... but we'll see. Like anyone else I can only base my opinions on my own experiences.

I was responding to a mantra with a mantra, to use your term.

I don't provide opinions all the time because I don't want to come off as a know-it-all douchebag.

Not to mention that the first rule of parenting is: you don't know anything.

But the little you do know can be used to provide others with tools more powerful than any "expert's" book. Oppinions should be stated, its if you state em as absolute fact then you come off as a douche, but by holding back it can do worse dammage.

Here's my opinion: anyone seeking parental advice on a forum for adult toy collectors is probably looking in the wrong place.

Agreed.

Hunter's Parenting Advice: If children were administered lethal beatings more often, they'd be a lot different I assure you!

Since we're dishing out advice, I agree with Hunter...BEAT YOUR KIDS!!!!

...no harder than that.

Tell them bruises build character, but only if no one else sees them...f%&king CPS telling me how to beat (or not to) my kids. That's what most kids need nowadays anyways, a good old fashioned @$$-whooping. Children have been looking at society through euphemisms for far too long. Make sure they know what happens when you say the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time... IT HURTS and I'm not talking feelings people.

I dont think you read my post very closely.
My kids straighten out pretty permanently after one of my beatings.

Trust me - it only takes ONE for them to have learned their lesson.

And CPS is never involved the coroner maybe but never CPS

lol, at least we know ReverendNash's feelings on the subject though

What's wrong with less than lethal force, the police are supposed to use it, why can't I?


Do you offer babysitting services? As I said though, I prefer less than lethal, but by all means be as creative as possible.

I do, and I am - but only for consenting adults.

Erm... I disagree. If bruising kids is character building, then why not build their character by repeatedly hitting them with a hammer? Studies have shown that corporal punishment often does more harm (mostly psychological) than good... that's pretty much why it's illegal.

A more effective method is to teach kids responsibility - and I find that in the vast majority of cases, that is at the core of consistent misbehaviour and what adults consider to be insolent or disrespectful attitudes and conduct. In Western society, children very quickly learn what their rights are. We're all about teaching people rights. But what I find is lacking is that we're not as good in teaching kids that with rights comes responsibility.

Yes, you have the right to free speech, but you need to use that right responsibly! Verbal abuse is not a responsible use of that right!

And children need to learn that if they abuse their right then that right will be restricted or lost. And it's an important life lesson to learn too, because that's what happens to adults in real life. For example, we all have the right to be free, but if we severely break the law, then we will be imprisoned and thus have that right to freedom restricted or removed.

Dr. William Glasser's theories on Choice Reality Therapy works on the idea that all children inherently want to do what's right, even if they're completely going about it the wrong way - and they often do that because they are just children. Choice Therapy is about managing behaviour through the use of choices rather than trying to directly control children by telling them what to do.

Here's a recent example... about a week ago I went out with my wife's friends who have a grandson who is often quite spoilt. I've seen his mum (a single mother) struggle with trying to manage his behaviour. A month or so ago we went to Yum Cha where this kid was constantly out of his chair, jumping around and pouncing on his mum's chair and even hitting his mother (not violently, light hits mostly to get her attention) - generally being a royal nuisance. And I've seen this kid act like this almost every time I see him. :/ So anyway, last week my wife and I went out with this kid, his grandparents and his aunt to a Japanese restaurant. As soon as we were seated he started playing with his chopsticks - banging them about. The first entrée arrived (Agedashi Tofu - yum!) and when his grandmother offered him some he started having a hissy-fit and slapped his grandmother's arm away (again, not hard - just as a gesture of "no I don't want any!"). He also kept squirming and bouncing around in his seat and his grandfather repeatedly told him to sit still, but he didn't comply. Both grandparents repeatedly verbally prompted him with "stop doing that," and "sit still" - i.e.: verbal commands to behave. With his mother absent, I decided to take some initiative in stopping this child from ruining yet another dining experience, so I used some Choice Therapy.

I said to the boy, "Do you want to be here?"
He immediately shut up and gave me a curious look.
"Because you don't have to be here if you don't want to. Would you like to stay here."
"...yes..."
"Well if you want to stay here then you need to do the right thing. If you don't do the right thing and you don't want to be here, I'll take you home and you can watch cartoons. But if you want to stay here with us, you need to behave. It's your choice."
He didn't reply to that, but after that his behaviour was fine.

A lot of kids resent being told what to do by adults because they see it as a form of immediate control and a restriction on their freedom. When people feel cornered and boxed in - i.e.: when they feel that they are not in control - then it's natural for them to become hostile and/or resentful. In this case, this child's parents kept on trying to control him. When they were saying, "Stop doing that! Sit still!" they're directly telling him what to do. On one level, this is boxing the child in and making him feel impotent. He has no choice or control over his situation (and as far as the child is concerned, his life). On another level, the adults are treating him as though he's unable to decide how to behave - as if he's unable to make that call... which is kinda insulting to his intelligence. Kids don't like being treated as if they're stupid.

Notice in the above example, I never actually prescribed any action for him. I never told him to sit still, I never told him to stop hitting people or to stop playing with his utensils. I simply told him that he could choose to either continue misbehaving or choose to behave, but pointed out that for whichever choice he made, there would be a consequence. If he chose to do the right thing, there would be a positive consequence - i.e.: he gets to stay and have dinner with us. If he chose to do the wrong thing, there would be a negative consequence - i.e.: he gets sent home. I would just leave him there to watch his cartoons and come back to continue dining with my wife and our friends. The only person who would be really inconvenienced would just be himself.

Directly telling the child what to do disempowers them, but allowing them to make a decision makes them feel empowered (boys tend to react very badly to feeling impotent because our society teaches us that males should never be impotent - even grown men tend to lash out angrily if they feel that their power or status is being challenged or threatened; we see it a lot amongst users here).

If you ever watch Super Nanny, she basically works off Choice Therapy. Children (even infants) are allowed to choose for themselves what to do, but are made aware that there are positive and negative consequences for those behaviours. If they're good they are lavished with praise and rewards (e.g.: points). If they're bad, they are given a time out, like the naughty spot, or deduction of points.

Now having said all that - before I get totally laughed at by Big Daddy - I must admit that there are limitations to Choice Therapy. As I mentioned before, Choice Therapy revolves around the assumption that people want to do what's right, even if they don't know how to do it. In other words, Choice Therapy assumes that the person inherently cares - and most kids do. Even when they're kicking and screaming and swearing at you, most of the time they do care. It's just that they get angry because they don't have good skills to cope with their frustration - often because they feel impotent. BUT - they are children and sometimes children, at least for a moment, simply don't care. They can become so irrational that no amount of attempting to re-empower them with choices helps, usually because they've allowed themselves to become too emotionally upset that you simply cannot engage them at a rational level - at least not for the time being.

It's times like this that Choice Therapy hits a brick wall - and it's times like this that adults need to resort to other strategies, like making direct authoritative commands. I try to use choice therapy first, but if a child is being too irrational where it's not working, then I'm just going to go old school and tell them what to do. But by trying choice therapy first, at least afterwards when you're couselling the child, or when the child reflects on what's happened, it can be recognised that you tried to let them be in control, but they refused your offer.

For example, if a kid in my class is persistently misbehaving, I will initially give them choice therapy. "You need to do the right thing, if you don't then you're going to have to see me at lunch time." If the child becomes openly defiant, hostile and oppositional, then choice therapy is going to do fcuk all. There's no point offering further choices to a person who's become that irrational.

So here's an example scenario of what I mean...
Teacher: "You need to get on with your work and stop distracting other students. If you finish your work quietly and quickly then we might play a learning game. If not, then we're not going to get to play the game and you're going to report to me at lunch time. It's up to you."
Student: "FCUK THAT SH!T! I HATE THIS FCUKING SCHOOL!"
Teacher: "Get out. Go report to the Head Teacher."
Student: (defiantly refuses to comply)
Teacher: "Either you can report to the Head Teacher, or I'm going to have to send for him, and he's not going to be happy with you."
Student: "See if I care..."
Teacher: (to a good student) "Please go to the staffroom and tell the Head Teacher that (Bad Student) is being uncooperative."
(a few minutes later the Head Teacher comes to my classroom)
Class Captain: "Kiritsu!" (all students stand up)
Class Captain: "Chuumoku!" (all students stand at attention)
Class Captain: "Rei!" (all students bow)
Class: "Sensei konnichi wa."
Head Teacher: "Konnichi wa."
Class Captain: "Chakuseki!" (all students sit down)
Head Teacher: (looks and points at bad student) "Come with me please."
(bad student follows Head Teacher who then gives him further consequences as a result of his actions)

...Choice Therapy and Direct Control are two of various strategies in behaviour management. And just like in any other situation where you use strategy (e.g.: war, sports, games etc) there is no single strategy that will work in every situation. You need to assess the situation and deploy whichever strategy you think would best work in an attempt to outmaneouvre your opponent. For example, in Chess there are times where you attack and times to defend. Times where you use your Pawns and times where you use your more powerful pieces. Although the Queen is the most powerful piece, you cannot win most games of Chess by solely using the Queen to force a Checkmate.

I personally see Choice Therapy as the Queen in Chess and Direct Control as the Pawn. Both can be effective depending on when you use them.

And as we learn in martial arts, there are three key elements in a fight:
Training
Technique
Timing

There are times to give kids choices and times to tell them to stfu and listen to your orders. It's the timing in the execution of these techniques which becomes vital in how effective they are in managing behaviour.

Last year I supervised a student-teacher and I told her to seriously read "The Art of War" by Sun Zi. She did, and her management skills became greatly improved. I told her that - within what is legally allowed (i.e.: no corporal/physical punishment!) there is no right or wrong strategy in managing behaviour. It depends on the personality of the adult coupled with the personality of the child and how well the adult can deploy those strategies in managing the child or children.

Ultimately - so long as what you're doing is legal - if it works for you, stick with it.


Lol!!

Just beat them with a sack of oranges, doesn't leave a bruise but lets 'em know whose boss.

Goki...I'm pretty sure he wasn't serious.

*laughs at Goki*

Here's something for you to laugh at me about -- I get my parenting ideas from the BIBLE (noes!!1). What you call "choice therapy" is 3,000 years old. It's how God dealt with his people: he lays out the rules, explains the rewards for good behavior and the consequences for bad behavior, and it goes from there. And that's what I've always done with my kids. If they do well, I make sure to praise them and such. If they act poorly, I remind them of the rules, tell them not to do it, etc. -- and yes, in extreme cases, they have gotten spankings. Which depends greatly on the child, I might add. My youngest son was extremely willful and needed more forceful reminders of the boundaries. My second son never needed anything more than a Daddy Voice.

But really, this is all common-sense stuff. You can't hold someone to a standard of behavior if they don't know what that standard is. Just randomly saying "don't do that" is not going to teach your kids anything other than how to be skittish and always afraid that they're doing something wrong. (Not to mention that it may encourage quite the 'fuck you' attitude in some kids.) They need to know the rules and boundaries in advance. It gives them freedom and self-confidence, because they can know -- without Mommy or Daddy saying anything -- if they're within those boundaries.

JMO etc.

I'm not saying that "choice therapy" is something new, but a lot of the behaviour management models used in some schools today (or at least, the schools that I've worked in) is based on the choice/reality therapy theoretical model from Dr. William Glasser.

I know it all sounds like "well duh!" common sense, but you'd be surprised at how many parents (and teachers) I come across who struggle to understand and/or implement these concepts. Seriously. Sadly I deal with the product of poor parenting on a daily basis... like parents who think that kids can just raise themselves (sigh) :/


Erm... yeah... that's kinda different. But I'm not gonna go there.

The concept is exactly the same. It can be a handy book, if you read it

That is so close to Muslim Immams advice on beating yer women.

This incident should serve to highlight TWO things,
1) Kids NEED parenting, they need a "firm hand" but a fair one, they need to be controled and dealt with. The parent involved got a better effect than they could have planned for, the kids embarrasment at having the fireservice out to get their hand off the bed would be enough in most cases to make the kid think twice in future. The added bonus being HE WENT TO SCHOOL THE SAME DAY ANYWAY, that re-inforces both the resolve of the firemen AND the mother sending the kid to school and not offering the day off out of sympathy.

2) That there obviously is a bad situation at the school that the kid needs to be able to talk about, from what it looks like his mother is obviously of the persuasion that she can never be wrong or the kid wouldnt go to such lengths to get her attention in such a way, secondly that the term "grass up" needs to be pulled from one of shame to one of pride. Kids wont tell of problems at school problems which intensify the more they are ignored, why? Because they dont want to be seen as a "grass". I KNOW THAT THE LAST IS THE TRUTH, I NEVER wanted to go to High School, too many bullies and the feeling that nothing could change. I finally cracked half way through the middle year. One of the worst bullies had taken my best work to date and covered it with Sh!t and buned what he couldnt cover, I was so goddamn angry I told both my parents and the school headmaster. after 6ish months of beatings etc.. The summer holidays came, after them it was a normal Biology class, one of the other fuxtards was planning something, the lad spoke to them saying something I couldnt hear, they stopped, it came to the "GET A LAB PARTNER(an oxymoron for we worked in 3's) FOR THE FORTNIGHT" time. I usually ended up with the dumbass and one nice looking girl who felt sorry for me, This time YUP I got the nice looker, but, only 2 seconds later that lad came over and basically asked my permission to be our partner. By the end of the year he was one of my 3 mates there.

Yeah, I've read it... extensively... in multiple languages. Um... no thanks.


There's a difference between managing and controlling someone else's behaviour. But I totally agree in being 'firm but fair.'

Are you sure? There's even a counting section in it.

Most people wouldn't take parenting tips from a book that was 20 years old, let alone 2000 years old..

or from any book, judging by what I see at the stores...

...sounds like someones asking for a beating...

Physical abuse just turns your kid into a wussy. Psychological abuse though, that gets results

That's that spirit!

So you're saying the Bible is way past obsolete?

Not completely. Certain aspects are well out of date. I'm not even gonna guess who'd be up to the task of updating it... But thats a can of worms for another thread entirely.

It was once the paperless office was invented. Since then, the old King James Bible had been replaced by the INTERNETS Bible.