The naughty step - Does it work?

Ms. Pingui

I have a little girl who has just turned three. Recently I've noticed that she has started acting naughty a lot of the time.
She shoves other kids, hits me and screams at me. She has terrible tantrums every time she doesn't get her own way. Obviously I want to nip this behaviour in the bud, especially before she starts playschool in September.

I am a lone parent and we live with my parents and sister so it's difficult to stop her getting spoiled with so many doting adults around her all the time!

I have been looking into starting to use a naughty step, but I have read conflicting views on whether it really works or not.
Has anyone had any experience with it? Did it work or not?
What is the correct procedure to use if you found the naughty step useful?

Any input is appreciated!

pwurple

It depends on the child. My niece LOVES the naughty step, so it's no use!

It's the same as the naughty corner or the naughty chair. Give them a warning, and then always follow through. 1 minute per year of age.

DM addict

Some people find it works, others don't.

The most important thing with any form of discipline is consistency. And then clarity.

I started to type out a procedure for you, but this is much better - http://www.jofrost.com/naughty-step-technique/

Lisha

Easier said than done i know but for me it's a consistent approach to specific behaviours that works.
Be clear and consistent and never threaten something that you won't follow through on.

Also pick your battles, something's are better left alone.

(Speaking as the mother of a three year old who is shockingly headstrong. She's great with older kids but a tyrant with her own age . She will be fine in time for playschool .she really will)

I agree with pwurple s description with naughty stow as above, . I find its great to stop a pointless argument. Gives both parent and child a chill out time

How Strange

The naughty step made famous/infamous by Jo Frost isn't the only way to address toddlers behaviour.

I put my son on the sofa during a tantrum or a challenging moment and let him calm down, then I give him a kiss and a hug. If he does something 'bold' or dangerous like running on the road I try to explain there and then why that's not appropriate.

I like to reward good behaviour, distract him from doing something naughty and will only ever call the behaviour bold. He's always a good boy who sometimes does naughty things but he's never a bold boy. That way he only gets attention for being good.

The most important thing is consistency so whichever way you choose to discipline stick to it and carry it through.

Queen-Mise

It always worked for me - I used a lot of the Jo Frost methods. I take/took the bits that worked for my kids. So specifically I used the naughty 'step' (time out, whatever term you want to put on it) and her going to bed method.

The one with the naughty step, is always consistency. One warning, and then naughty step. When finished, tell them clearly why they were on it & why that behaviour is not acceptable, and then an apology from child and finished.

It is the beginning of really teaching a child that they are consequence to actions - of trying to get that concept into their heads.

And what How Strange says is also really important - concentrate on the positive stuff, pretty much constantly. I really believe this one - that a child wants attention so whether they get in through good or bad behaviour makes no odds to them.
Although I used to feel like a twit, constantly complimenting/acknowledging the child's good behaviour - it does work.


Also work on your family - just keep reminding them, that although X is a lovely child, that she won't stay a lovely child if she is a spoiled brat :P:D (word it some way that they will understand, why its important to do it)

Moonbeam

I think I used it twice ever:)
positive reinforcement is worth looking at.

Lola92

The main issue that I have with the naughty step is the fact that it is giving a consequence that is unrelated to the action. No matter what the unwanted behaviour is the consequence will always be to put them on the step and (from what I remember watching super nanny) the child is then isolated or ignored, no eye contact etc.

I personally would favour a more responsive approach, where there is a link between action and consequence and most importantly you make it clear that it is the behavior that is unacceptable, not the child. I try to take the child away from the situation, into another room or just outside the door and stay with them until they calm down. Especially with young toddlers it is important to label their emotions and show some empathy, they are most likely frustrated and confused/tired etc. Saying something like ' I think you are angry because it is time to tidy up, and you weren't finished playing your game. It's hard when we have to do something and we don't feel ready. Maybe we can take some time out and when you are calm we can go and finish tidying up together, we can play the game again later/tomorrow if there is time'.

Or if a child is throwing toys, explain that it is not okay to do this in the house, but instead bring them to the garden/outdoors and give them a ball to throw, it makes a connection about where certain behaviors are acceptable and appropriate.

David Coleman's books are great on this approach. It is not always easy to keep your cool of course but for me counting to ten in my head if I feel myself getting angry really helps me to reassess a situation. For example, if your kid paints all over the walls (like mine did this morning) it is easy to lose the head and go off ranting about how bold that is and child needs to go on naughty step etc. but after taking a few breaths and thinking about it I realised that it was my fault, not hers. If I had been supervising her properly and hadn't left things lying around where they are accessible to her it wouldn't have happened. She is a kid, curious and loves exploring, so while she should not have done it, the blame does not only lie with her. So a chat about where it is appropriate to do that worked better, she told me that now she will only paint with a grown up on paper at the table. And instead we can do some other sensory activity if that is that interests her.

miss no stars

Lola92 wrote: »

The main issue that I have with the naughty step is the fact that it is giving a consequence that is unrelated to the action. No matter what the unwanted behaviour is the consequence will always be to put them on the step and (from what I remember watching super nanny) the child is then isolated or ignored, no eye contact etc.

I personally would favour a more responsive approach, where there is a link between action and consequence and most importantly you make it clear that it is the behavior that is unacceptable, not the child. I try to take the child away from the situation, into another room or just outside the door and stay with them until they calm down. Especially with young toddlers it is important to label their emotions and show some empathy, they are most likely frustrated and confused/tired etc. Saying something like ' I think you are angry because it is time to tidy up, and you weren't finished playing your game. It's hard when we have to do something and we don't feel ready. Maybe we can take some time out and when you are calm we can go and finish tidying up together, we can play the game again later/tomorrow if there is time'.

Or if a child is throwing toys, explain that it is not okay to do this in the house, but instead bring them to the garden/outdoors and give them a ball to throw, it makes a connection about where certain behaviors are acceptable and appropriate.

David Coleman's books are great on this approach. It is not always easy to keep your cool of course but for me counting to ten in my head if I feel myself getting angry really helps me to reassess a situation. For example, if your kid paints all over the walls (like mine did this morning) it is easy to lose the head and go off ranting about how bold that is and child needs to go on naughty step etc. but after taking a few breaths and thinking about it I realised that it was my fault, not hers. If I had been supervising her properly and hadn't left things lying around where they are accessible to her it wouldn't have happened. She is a kid, curious and loves exploring, so while she should not have done it, the blame does not only lie with her. So a chat about where it is appropriate to do that worked better, she told me that now she will only paint with a grown up on paper at the table. And instead we can do some other sensory activity if that is that interests her.

I get what you're saying. It is important, where appropriate, to come up with a natural consequence. I was working with kids with ASDs in the USA so it was really important to make sure the consequence could be really closely linked to the undesirable behaviour. Like, if a kid is causing trouble with other kids and despite warnings won't stop saying/doing whatever's upsetting the other kids, then we'd having them sit beside a group activity but not participate. It works really well when you explain that their behaviour showed that they weren't able to be nice to others, so you don't want them to spoil the fun for everyone else. If they had been nicer to the other kids, they could have joined in. Then if the same behaviours resurface it's easy to give a reminder, like "Remember last night when you weren't allowed take part in campfire? That was because you were calling the other kids names. I see you're now calling them names again. You must stop calling them names or you will miss out on [desirable activity] this evening". If they weren't behaving in the pool, then they had to get out of the pool. It's great and it worked well with older kids as it crystallized in their minds the whole actions and consequences thing. With little kids (like on supernanny generally) the consequence (singular) of bad behaviour is reinforced through repetition. It's easier for them to understand. Break a rule = naughty step = not very fun. It's more concrete. From what I've observed, they do work on understanding the behaviour. One I saw was a kid who would run out the door and disappear. They allowed him a roaming space and let the kid know that people understand that he likes to go off and explore, so he can go explore but he needs to make sure there's an adult around and that he stays within certain areas. The consequence of going outside those areas was time on the naughty step.

Natural consequences are great but they only go so far; if I steal a car I'm not prevented from owning a car, I'm put in jail. If I park illegally, I have to pay a fine. "Un-natural consequences" are something that kids have to learn to deal with too. So with the naughty step, if a kid hits their sibling they get put on the naughty step and have to apologise afterwards. What's the natural consequence? To be punched back? I know that's an extreme example but sometimes kids have to learn that it doesn't matter why they did something unacceptable, it's still unacceptable. Obviously toddlers have a hard time controlling frustration, I don't think anyone would ever argue against that. But even they have to learn (and they sometimes know bloody well themselves) that they just can't do certain things, no matter how angry or frustrated they are.

wolfpawnat

Many parents find it works, and great. There is nothing wrong with it, it didn't work with my guy though, I tried for a few months.

For me, positive-rewards, negative-ignore him. So when my son tantrumed yesterday no matter what he shouted or did, I just ignored him, so within 5 minutes, he was talking again and then I listened and responded immediately, meaning the positive action was rewarded and he continued the positive behaviour.

I know this sounds bad, but after trying and not succeeding with many techniques, we tried the technique that is also suggested to train a dog, and it actually worked great, he is so much happier as throughout his day he is getting compliments and being told how great he is. When there is silence, he asks what did he do, as long as he asks and not shouts, I tell him and he does everything to try to prevent it happening again.

Regarding other kids, if he misbehaved to them I tell him why it is wrong. If he does it again, he is taken away from the fun and games completely. I have left parties and everything and he now knows I am serious! He is only 4 and in the few months I have been doing this, he has become such a brilliant, happier child.

Other people swear the same about the naughty step/chair/corner etc. It is all about consistency and finding something that works for you.

Hannibal Smith

We use it...but we call it time out...it was to have consistency with the creche more than any thing and not to confuse him. But it worked with us. The point is you tell the child why you're putting them into time out and when you return after the minute or whatever you remind them why they were put there and that whatever they did is unacceptable..kiss...hug and moment gone. It helps me so much too because it stops things escalating.

I think if you're in a house with your parents etc it will be tough...but everyone has to be on board if itnis to work. We have a list of rules on the fridge that are automatic time out crimes. ...gets everyone on the same page

As with any methodology there will of course be many people it simply does not work for.

But I am also aware of many people who say it does not work but do not actually do it like the "Experts" recommend.

Verbal warning first - then follow through is a common recommendation for example. But I have lost count of how many people give no warning - many warnings - or never follow through.

Explaining clearly during the verbal warning AND after putting the child on the "spot" what their transgression actually is/was - and doing so "at their level" rather than shouting down at them or across a room at them. What I witness often is people saying "Dont do that" or "Get on the naughty step because you were bold".

And finally when taking them off the "step" again - explain exactly why they were put there - and obtain a meaningful calm apology from the child rather than an angry one or refusal to give one. Followed by a kiss and cuddle and positive reinforcement. Again what I observe is people shouting "Your 3 minutes are up you can get off now" or accepting angry shouted apologies or no apology at all - or giving no acknowledgement of the apology or hug and love to end the bad feelings.

Now as I said - doing the above as recommended does not mean the method will work for everyone. I just feel that many people who _think_ it is not working for them are not actually doing it the way many recommend.

anncoates

Depends on the child.

Problem with the opinion of a lot of parents on discipline and other parenting matters is that they assume what works for their own kids should work for everybody else's but all kids are different.

We just called it Time Out, not Naughty Step. 2-3 warnings beforehand and then put them on a chair in the corner of the hall within your eyesight but not catching their eye. Waited 3 minutes and usually then they would apologize and you could chat about what they did wrong.

It worked for our two boys, not so much as a punishment but just to let them chill out and work off their tantrum/calm down.

liliq

My issue with a lot of the 'experts' recommendations is that they're not always 'experts'. Jo frost has experience but no formal qualifications and nothing except for short term success in some situations to back up her methodology.

wmpdd3

I was raised in a house where a smack was the answer to everything. I knew I would never hit my kids so I choose the 'step'.

From 18 mts to 2 she went on the step a few times every weeks, not I only have to mention it and she stops misbehaving. At most she'd be on there twice a week.

It only works with some kids, my niece just does her bit, get caught and storms off to the step herself. Her older brother instantly listens when you mention the step.

January

To the anonymous poster: Do not even try to advocate violence. If you had posted that as a regular poster you would have been infracted.