"Parenting Without Punishing"

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

Detention isn't allowed in my school-too many parents don't want it. IN
general, just about everything which could be deemed "punitive" has been
disallowed. A teacher in my school was given a formal reprimand just for
requiring that students clean up a mess that they had made-because it was
"humiliating" for the students.

And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic
motivation".

That's quite unusual.

Is there a plan in place to encourage self-discipline in the students?
You have to have a school wide plan that encourages kids if you want
to eliminate behaviorist techniques.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic
motivation".

So there are no grades then? No report cards?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in life.
If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be consequences. You
dont show up to work and you get fired, you slack off at your work you get
fired. You make a mess in your home eventualy you or your spouse will have
to clean it up. You cheat on your spouse they will most likely leave you.
While it would be wonderful to live in a world without punishment in general
it is just not the case. To raise a child to not have cause and effect
other then the "natural consequenses" (IE sticking a fork in the outlet will
get the child shocked) is just as bad IMO then to over punish a child.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04
"toto" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic
motivation".

So there are no grades then? No report cards?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Chris" wrote in message
...

Three years later, I ask you again: where is your scientific evidence
of measurable long term benefit to children from spanking? If you have
none, please signify by ignoring this question, or perhaps by vanishing
again.

In a free society, it is not up to a person who wants to do something to
prove that what he wants to do will be beneficial. Rather, it is up to a
person who wants to regulate another's actions to prove that the action will
be harmful.

It can be argued that the fact that punishment is unpleasant to the person
who is being punished is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to view
punishment as harmful. However, if we adopted that view as a matter of
blind principle, we could not punish robbers, rapists, and murderers. Our
laws recognize that when one person's actions harm another, whether
physically or in some other way, punishment can be used to try to stop (or
at least slow down) the actions.

So while at least from a theoretical perspective, an excellent case could be
made for requiring parents to make an effort at using positive methods to
guide their children's behavior before they are allowed to resort to threats
and punishment, it is not possible to use our society's normal operating
principles as a basis for arguing that parents should never be allowed to
punish no matter how much trouble their children's behavior is causing them.
If positive methods are not working, or are requiring an unreasonable amount
of time and effort from the parents before the child finally decides to
cooperate, punishment is not clearly unreasonable. (And whatever one wants
to argue about long-term effects, there are very clearly situations where
spanking can produce useful results in regard to children's short-term
behavior - especially in situations where there is no possibility that the
children won't get caught.)

Further, the idea that spanking is somehow inherently more cruel than other
forms of punishment is easily refuted by the existence of situations where
children PREFER a spanking over an alternative form of punishment that would
not be considered excessively cruel. I've seen few things more irrational
than the idea that it is abusive to paddle a child at school instead of
suspending the child even if the child would rather be paddled than
suspended. I imagine there are children who have what might be called an
"allergic" reaction to spanking, that is, a reaction that is much more
strongly negative than is normal. But in general, there is no logically
sound moral reason why spanking should be rejected in favor of other forms
of punishment in situations where punishment can be defended as legitimate.

I've said all this to lay the following foundation: (1) Under the views of
the majority of society, there is no logically sound reason for viewing it
as automatically immoral for parents to punish, and (2) there is no
logically sound reason for rejecting spanking as inherently more cruel than
other forms of punishment. Therefore, if one wants to build a case that
parents must not spank using a philosophical basis acceptable to most
Americans, that case has to be built on scientific evidence showing that
spanking causes sufficient long-term harm to outweigh its short-term
benefits. Otherwise, if parents cannot obtain acceptable behavior within a
reasonable amount of time using positive methods, they are justified in
using the threat of spanking (and, if necessary, actual spanking) for the
short-term benefits it produces WHETHER OR NOT spanking produces long-term
benefits compared with if they spent a lot more time and effort trying to
resolve the issue using purely non-punitive techniques.

(Obviously, this argument does not work if one accepts Steve's view that
parents owe it to their children to do whatever it takes to solve problems
through purely non-punitive techniques. But the majority does not believe
that children's interests should outweigh those of parents to that degree.)

So what does the evidence say? Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study shows a
truly enormous distinction between the effects parents can expect if they
spank only when they have themselves firmly under control and those they can
expect if they spank as a result of losing their tempers. In the process,
it pretty much blows all of the other studies out of the water insofar as
parents who always do a self-diagnostic to make absolutely sure they have
themselves under control before they spank are concerned. (And if parents
have the self-control to avoid spanking at all, they also presumably have
the self-control to avoid spanking without thinking carefully first.) In
essence, as best I can tell, that one study puts the anti-spanking side
pretty much back to square one in regard to the question of whether parents
should never spank or whether they can expect equally good results if they
merely are very careful that they spank only for the right reasons.

Therefore, I view a parenting style that focuses on using positive
techniques most of the time but in which parents are willing to spank or
otherwise punish in situations where positive techniques are not working
well as a reasonable choice. It produces the short-term benefit of
resolving certain types of situations in which parents feel like a child is
being unreasonable more quickly and, in the process, teaches the child that
there are limits to how much his preferences will be allowed to interfere
with the lives of others. And to the best of my knowledge (and please
correct me if I'm wrong), there is no evidence demonstrating long-term harm
of "never lost it" spanking sufficient to outweigh the short-term benefits.
If you want to change my mind, you need to provide evidence that
demonstrates such harm, and the evidence needs to be specific to "never lost
it" spanking in the context of an overall parenting style that is primarily
positive.

Nathan

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:36:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic
motivation".

So there are no grades then? No report cards?

Grades are merely a measurement device. Thus, the reward of a good grade is
the reward of doing something successfully, much as winning a game because
one played it well is a reward or playing a song on the piano well is a
reward. Conversely, bad grades "punish" in the same sense that losing a
game as a result of making mistakes is a "punishment" or making mistakes
while playing the piano is a "punishment."

The "reward" or "punishment" inherent in grades is intrinsic to the child's
knowing that he is doing something well or poorly. It is not something
extrinsic intended solely for the purpose of manipulation. Indeed, the only
way children WON'T feel the reward of being highly successful in their
studies or the "punishment" of being less successful is if adults refuse to
provide the children with accurate information about how well they are
doing.

Personally, I view hiding information from children out of fear that knowing
the truth might hurt their "self-esteem" as reprehensible. True self-esteem
comes from recognizing one's abilities and limitations and regarding it as
success to do one's best even if other people's best is better, not from
ignorance. And false self-esteem founded on ignorance is doomed to failure
in the long term because once children see the truth, their old sense of
self-esteem collapses and they have no foundation on which to build a new
sense of self-esteem to replace it.

Nathan

"Doan" wrote in message
...

"Chris is now admitting that there are evidence of beneficial effects
of low-level spanking. Good, but he went on to misrepresent the
Straus & Mouradin (1998) study. As I have pointed out early, and
Chris cannot dispute this, the study only asked the mothers thus
there is no true "never-spanked" group to speak of. Furthermore,
this study included children as old as 14 years and by asking
only about spankings in the last 6-months, there is a period
of up to 13.5 years where spankings were not even accounted for.
In short, the study just don't support what Chris claimed above."

Unless my memory is failing me miserably, Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study
did include a category of mothers who spanked but had not spanked in the
last six months. So it did draw a distinction between those who never
spanked and those who did not spank recently.

Of course that still leaves the issue of how many mothers might have started
off never intending to spank, didn't like their results, and ended up
changing their minds and spanking at least once. When a group is allowed to
eject at least some of its less successful results into another group, that
can easily make the group look more effective than it really is.

Doan wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.activism.children
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: "Parenting Without Punishing"



I wouldn't this far.


Parent without using punishment? We know. You don't have the capacity.
Many have it and use it. Some got it the hard way, but thinking and
learning.

So where are they? How have their children faired? Did they grow up to
be a Mother Theresa? A Ted Turner? Or do they grow up to be like you
and Steve ? ;-)

Doan
------------------
You'd be glad to have a kid like me!
And you never would.
Steve

Donna Metler wrote:

"Lesa" wrote in message
...

"jitney" wrote in message
om...
The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney

If one praises "good" behavior and treats a chid with repsect, talking to
said child when "bad" things occur, there is no need for punishment.


With all children?
------------------
If you do it 1) from the start, or 2) long enough to deprogram them, yes
indeed.


With non-neurotypical children?
------------------
Wire them up, we'll still do better than you do!


With children adopted at
the age of 3 from foreign countries? With children in foster care?
-----------------------------
It does work, takes a while, but the results are worth it.
Your results will always be worse over time.


You see, "teaching without punishing" has been pushed down the throats of
the educational system for more than a decade (I've been teaching that
long). ANd while it works with some children-the naturally compliant kids
who will burst into tears at the thought that they've failed an adult, there
are others who definitely take advantage of the situation.
-----------------------------
Then you're doing it wrong.


The result is what you see in many public schools today (probably private
ones, too)-a bunch of kids who are very sure that nothing you can do will
affect them. They don't care about the relationship, or about pleasing the
teacher. They don't care about pleasing their parents. They don't care about
long-term results.
----------------------
Then they have no friends. BE THEIR FRIEND! If you have no time for
that, if all you do is neglect to do the same evil **** you used to,
of course that won't work right! If they do something that in adult
life would be found criminal, then you have to sentence them to "jail".
If they do things that an adult is allowed to do, leave them alone,
or ask their help.


And the results is that no child in the same classroom gets a good
education.
----------------
Jail the evildoer, or send them home. The latter will scare the more
abused ones more, but jail is boring. A few times in a featureless
room with no furniture for an hour or two and they will avoid it if
you're kind to them when they come out. But you must ONLY use jail
when they abuse others criminally.


And, it has been my impression that the "don't you DARE punish my child
because I don't believe in punitive parenting" parents are the ones who
generally have the WORST behaved children, and who stand up for their child,
shielding them from even natural consequenses the most-rather than the other
way around.
-----------------------
You oughta see the way THEY treat them AT HOME! It is their paranoia
of their home-behavior being discovered that causes them to lash out
first and PRETEND to be a non-punitive parent. Actually they're just
possessive of their favorite "punching bag" and the school getting
close enough to their kid to find out!!


Those parents who do use consequences at home generally don't
have to use many. They're not shrieking lunatics beating their child with an
extention cord (actually, those are more likely to be the parent who has
never before punished their child and then snaps-the worst cases of abuse
we've had in the school were exactly that). Rather, they've learned that
saying "NO" and enforcing that "When I say NO, and you don't listen, there
are consequenses" works. Punishment doesn't always mean spanking. It doesn't
have to ever mean spanking. But there needs to be some way of showing that
the child doesn't always have complete control of all situations.
------------------------
Terror is violence, no matter if threat of harm, or the few instances
of harm that were done to cowe them. It makes kids swear revenge, and
that leads to hatred of others and society even if they leave their
parents to linger in nursing homes with bone-deep bed-sores.
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

In fairness to non-punitive parenting techniques, public schools are
probably a pretty lousy laboratory from which to see how good their results
are. Suppose you take a child who is used to finding cooperative win-win
solutions at home, and you put him in a school where the teacher keeps
telling him what to do all the time. Suddenly, the child goes from having
parents who bend over backward to cooperate to having an adult in charge
whose job description doesn't allow much room for cooperation.
--------------------
You can bully such teachers by arranging appointments with them and
haranguing them, they are late getting home a number of times and
they learn not to **** with your kid. Also, you let the kid leave
school at 14 or 15 or home-school them and dummy the reports to the
state. If you're a great parent your kid will learn more on their own
anyway.


Worse, where
the child's love for and relationship with his parents provides a motivation
for cooperating with their desires, the child does not have similar love for
or a similar relationship with the teacher.
----------------------
Nonsense, the model of everyone is the parent.
It's hard to even convince them the teacher might not be nice
if YOU are!


Ultimately, what a purely non-punitive parenting style needs is either home
schooling or a kind of school that is more oriented toward cooperating with
the child's desires. And in a voucher system, parents who want to could
experiment with such schools without imposing their preferences (or their
children) onto others. Personally, I would expect mixed results from such
schools, with some bending over too far backwards catering to children's
whims but others finding ways to interest children in learning.
-----------------------------------
We need to ban vouchers because it causes societal schizm. We need
to subject everyone to viciousness so that they'll gang up on it and
change it.


But if parents who use non-punitive techniques at home do want to send their
children to a school that is not prepared to cater sufficiently to their
children's desires, I think they should have two choices: either the parents
accept responsibility for finding non-punitive solutions that deal with the
issue to the school's satisfaction in a timely manner, or they allow the
school to punish. Anything else is grossly unfair to the other children in
the class, and also to the teacher whose hands are tied by both the school
administration and the parents.

Nathan
-------------------
Nonsense, kids who are treated properly are no trouble at all at school,
leave them alone as if you're ignoring them and they'll do what they
ought to do anyway and learn by osmosis! These are the kind who read
a book in math class and ace the test. I was, my kids were.
Steve

Donna Metler wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
No, actually, what has been pushed is *not* teaching without
punishing, though teaching without corporal punishment has been
pushed in 27 states for more than a decade.

Using different punishments like detentions and bad grades is still
punitive. And what has been pushed is using material rewards like
stickers and bribes which is the other side of the control coin. It
works just as poorly.

Detention isn't allowed in my school-too many parents don't want it. IN
general, just about everything which could be deemed "punitive" has been
disallowed. A teacher in my school was given a formal reprimand just for
requiring that students clean up a mess that they had made-because it was
"humiliating" for the students.

And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic
motivation".
-------------------
You're merely lying in everything you just said. How pitiful.
Steve