Does "TV Allowance" work to manage kids' TV time?

Not even remotely close to not child proofing your home - funny how a small
thing can be twisted to something extreme like not childproofing your home.
BTW, while my home was childproofed to a certain extent (valuable or
dangerous objects out of sight or locked), it was not childproofed
completely because I *do* believe in having the kids learn that there are
things that they cannot have or touch.

As for the tv: "No, you can't watch tv." If they watch it behind my back,
they lose tv privileges. End of story. It's not a fight, never has been. YOu
don't listen, you don't get.

M

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ms Pnoopie Pnats wrote:

In article , clemmm78
@hotmail.com says...
I work from home, I tell them no, you can't watch tv and that's the
end of
it.

Marijke
in Montreal

I agree. Just say no and enforce it. If you catch them sneaking it on
give them more consequences. You don't need to buy anything. Just say
no.

I promise to spank the plank daily.

I guess I viewed it more like preventative maintenance.

Since it got to be a regular problem, with escalating consequences, I
prevented it from being turned on at all -- with the ultimate
consequence that they had almost NO TV time, since they could only watch
it when I had time to come down with the key and sit and watch with them.

They knew that the lock-out had been a direct result of their refusal to
comply with only watching with permission.

Just say no doesn't work well with all kids -- and why turn EVERYTHING
into a fight if you can set things up to prevent it?

I think I view your approach as simlar to people who refuse to
toddler-proof their house at ALL, preferring to be constantly stopping
their kids from touching fragile things. It may work, ultimately, to
teach the kids to behave -- but I think in the long run the kids learn
the same things, but with less hassle.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
Just say no doesn't work well with all kids -- and why turn EVERYTHING
into a fight if you can set things up to prevent it?

I've never had a fight with telling the girls to turn the TV off and do
something else. I don't interrupt a program that they are in the middle of
though. I have grumblings about doing chores, but since I don't limit the TV
to extremes, they seem to be happy to turn it off and do something else.

I think I view your approach as simlar to people who refuse to
toddler-proof their house at ALL, preferring to be constantly stopping
their kids from touching fragile things. It may work, ultimately, to
teach the kids to behave -- but I think in the long run the kids learn
the same things, but with less hassle.

I happen to not share that view. I babyproofed/toddler proofed because it
was easier for me to diffuse the frustration of having to keep the kids out
of stuff all the time and having to say no all day long.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"Ms Pnoopie Pnats" wrote in message
...
I toddler proofed my house. If you want to get the tv thing, get it but
what do you think parents did before the lock out devices existed.


Well, back in the old days , most households had only one TV or maybe two
and it would be in a central location. Much easier to monitor.

Jeanne

Well, back in the old days , most households had only one TV or maybe
two
and it would be in a central location. Much easier to monitor.

Jeanne

That's how our house is now - 1 TV in the living room, and 1 TV in my
bedroom (and we only got that last Christmas).

I don't get needing a device for a TV. When we say "no TV" it gets turned
off and if someone turns it back on, they go to their TV-less room.

In article ,
"Marijke" wrote:

Not even remotely close to not child proofing your home - funny how a small
thing can be twisted to something extreme like not childproofing your home.
BTW, while my home was childproofed to a certain extent (valuable or
dangerous objects out of sight or locked), it was not childproofed
completely because I *do* believe in having the kids learn that there are
things that they cannot have or touch.

As for the tv: "No, you can't watch tv." If they watch it behind my back,
they lose tv privileges. End of story. It's not a fight, never has been. YOu
don't listen, you don't get.

M

And how do you enforce that if the TV is where you can't see it or hear
it, but where the kids are allowed to play? What do you do when you
have a child who is ALWAYS willing to try to get away with as much as
they can? And for whom escalating consequences just don't seem to get
the job done? Make the child stay in their room for weeks on end?

I guess I don't understand why there is so much hostility about THIS
particular issue. What is wrong with setting things up so the kids
CAN'T defy your instructions -- so you DON'T have to be constantly
dealing with escalating consequences with a child who is difficult?
Reducing the number of things we would HAVE to have consequences for
seemed like a good solution to me.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
toto wrote:

On 5 Sep 2004 18:42:08 -0700, (teacherDeb) wrote:


Tom- In an attempt to try to get this question answered, I have
cross-posted on misc.kids.computer to see if anyone there has heard
about it. I have not, but would love to hear if it is effective, or
if anyone has other suggestions.

If anyone wants to take a look at the product, the website is
http://www.tvallowance.com/
http://www.familysafemedia.com/tv_allowance.html

In a way, this seems better than a lock box. I like the way the
idea is presented (it's like a money allowance as well)

I had never heard of the product before seeing it in mk.

http://www.tvallowance.com/hints.html

We suggest you introduce the TV ALLOWANCE by sitting
down with your children and asking them what they need to
watch in a week, not what they want to watch in a week
(you as a parent can always observe that they do not
'need' to watch shows you deem inappropriate). The idea
is to let them be involved in negotiating their own tv/computer
allowance. They will see that if they manage their weekly
allotment of time they can view what you have both agreed
is important to them. You will find that what a child needs
to watch is usually far less than what he/she wants to watch.
You may want to sit down and pull out the TV guide section
of the paper and go over this with your child to see what
and when the shows are that they would like to view. The
best thing about the TV ALLOWANCE is that once set up,
parents are now 'out of the loop' and it's up to the kids to
manage their allowance. The 'set it and forget it' feature
gets rave reviews.



I guess I find the idea of TV as a "need" (unless it's a homework
assignment) kind of absurd. Watching TV isn't a "need", like food or
sleep or love -- it's something we enjoy doing.

Ah, well -- I am a fan of whatever works, and if trying to distinguish
between "need" and "want" somehow works to help kids limit what they
watch, that's OK with me.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Marijke" wrote:
I guess I don't understand why there is so much hostility about THIS
particular issue. What is wrong with setting things up so the kids
CAN'T defy your instructions -- so you DON'T have to be constantly
dealing with escalating consequences with a child who is difficult?

Where is the hostility? I said that I say "no" and if my kids don't listen,
there are consequences.

I find it much easier to teach them what they are permitted to do and what
they are not permitted to do when they are taught on simpler things like
obeying me when I say "no tv." Plain and simple.

Your tv is in an inconvenient spot? Move the darned thing. Sheesh, if
there's any hostility, it's you and you being upset that I teach my kids to
listen over the small things. I never said that it would work for everyone.
I never said that the world has to do what I did. I merely said what I do. I
refuse to go out and buy or install something to control what I can control
as a parent. Plain and simple.

Hostility? Not coming from me, that's for sure.
Sadness that you feel that what I'm suggesting is so way off base.
FWIW, we have had a few arguments over the tv and it *is* a hill that I
choose to battle upon. Why? Because it is a matter of obeying my explained
rules and it's a matter of learning to control yourself. If they won't
listen to me on the smaller things, why on earth would I think that they
might listen to me on the bigger things. What are you going to do when and
if your kids learn how to drive? Hide the car keys because it's easier than
saying no? I can trust my oldest son to not take the car without permission
because he's proven his trustworthiness over other things LIKE THE TV. He's
proven to me that, for the most part, he does listen to my rules. That's not
to say he's never broken any, but we've gotten through it. And, if he does
take the car without permission, then he knows he will lose the privilige of
using it. Why? Because at the age of 17, he's learned that if mom and dad
say "no," they mean it. No locks, no tricky programs, no hiding things, the
simple word "no."

Not all kids can do that, I have friends with kids with other issues besides
defiance, and for them, they do what works. I said what works for us and for
many that we know. Just because you don't approve, doesn't make me the
hostile one.

M

"THW" wrote in message
...
We're having some trouble keeping our 8- and 11-year old boys from
watching
too much TV/Nintendo. In particular, it's difficult for my wife, who has
to
work from home some afternoons, to make sure the kids are doing homework
instead of parking themselves in front of the TV.

We've read about a device called "TV Allowance" that gives the kids PIN
codes that lets them watch only a set number of hours/week. In addition,
the TV can be set up to lock out kids completely during certain hours.

We're wondering if anyone out there has any experience with this (or
similar) devices), and if so, did they help solve the problem (or create
even more arguing)? Thanks.

Tom;


Sounds like a device that you buy in order to accomplish something that
should cost you nothing. Do you have stock in this product ?

In article ,
"Marijke" wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Marijke" wrote:
I guess I don't understand why there is so much hostility about THIS
particular issue. What is wrong with setting things up so the kids
CAN'T defy your instructions -- so you DON'T have to be constantly
dealing with escalating consequences with a child who is difficult?

Where is the hostility? I said that I say "no" and if my kids don't listen,
there are consequences.

I find it much easier to teach them what they are permitted to do and what
they are not permitted to do when they are taught on simpler things like
obeying me when I say "no tv." Plain and simple.

The clear implication in the way some folks are writing is that those of
us who use an artificial device to control TV viewing are somehow less
adequate parents -- GOOD parents simply tell their children what to do
and, through good parenting techniques, get compliance.


Your tv is in an inconvenient spot? Move the darned thing.

Alas, where we lived at the time, it was not possible. I know that
sounds weird, but it was an odd condo. We tried to find a way to put it
on the same floor as the kitchen (and therefore where I might have to be
working during the early evening, when this was most likely to be an
issue) but we just couldn't.

After we moved to a place where the TV WAS in a place I could monitor
it, we never kept it locked.

Sheesh, if
there's any hostility, it's you and you being upset that I teach my kids to
listen over the small things.

No, it is over the implication that, because your kids DO listen, you
must be a better parent -- that I must not try to "teach my kids to
listen over small things."

Do you imagine that those of us who resort to these mechanical devices
didn't TRY your way first? Do you understand that some kids are easier
to manage than others?

If I'd only had two of my three kids, I don't think I'd have resorted to
the mechanical device, either. They were pretty normal kids -- they
might try or argue a little, but ultimately they were fairly reasonable.

However, the third child gives new meaning to the word "stubborn", and I
tried to limit the number of things we were going head to head over. I
did NOT want to spend her entire childhood with escalating conseqences
over her violation of rules -- so I tried to make sure the only rules I
had were rules that HAD to be there, and to make it impossible for her
to violate those rules where I could.

I never said that it would work for everyone.
I never said that the world has to do what I did. I merely said what I do. I
refuse to go out and buy or install something to control what I can control
as a parent. Plain and simple.

Hostility? Not coming from me, that's for sure.

Not hostility, perhaps -- be definately an implication that I must not
be as good a parent as you are.

Sadness that you feel that what I'm suggesting is so way off base.

Not off base -- it worked for you, that's fine. You, however, seem to
think that what *I* did was way off base.

FWIW, we have had a few arguments over the tv and it *is* a hill that I
choose to battle upon. Why? Because it is a matter of obeying my explained
rules and it's a matter of learning to control yourself. If they won't
listen to me on the smaller things, why on earth would I think that they
might listen to me on the bigger things. What are you going to do when and
if your kids learn how to drive? Hide the car keys because it's easier than
saying no?

Hope that by the time they are that age, they'll have learned what
things to be stubborn about and what not. But that, because I was able
to limit the number of things (and amount of time) we spent going
head-to-head when she was younger, we have a decent relationship.

And, in fact, I don't have a problem with the two drivers taking the car
without permission. The most stubborn one is 18 and I expect will have
her license Real Soon Now. While we still have some issues, for the
most part, she is pretty easy to get along with now. (Well, a LOT
easier than when she was younger!) She lets me know where she is, and
is home when she's supposed to be. She finished high school her way (I
didn't like the choices she made, but it worked for her) and just
started college. She worked all summer (first real job) and is active
at church.

I can trust my oldest son to not take the car without permission
because he's proven his trustworthiness over other things LIKE THE TV. He's
proven to me that, for the most part, he does listen to my rules. That's not
to say he's never broken any, but we've gotten through it. And, if he does
take the car without permission, then he knows he will lose the privilige of
using it. Why? Because at the age of 17, he's learned that if mom and dad
say "no," they mean it. No locks, no tricky programs, no hiding things, the
simple word "no."

Well, good for you. My daughter is that way too --- she knows how to do
what she has to do, and she's pretty good company.

It took a long time to get here, and her early teen years were pretty
much a nightmare (for both of us, I think) -- but I can't imagine that
finding ways to limit the number of things we had to fight about made it
WORSE than it would have been.



Not all kids can do that, I have friends with kids with other issues besides
defiance, and for them, they do what works. I said what works for us and for
many that we know. Just because you don't approve, doesn't make me the
hostile one.

I don't disapprove of people NOT using artificial devices -- I say, use
what works. Where on earth have I said that getting your children to
comply without an artificial lock-out is a BAD idea?

However, you continue to imply that using a lock-out device shows that I
wasn't as good a parent -- after all *you* never had to resort to that,
because *you* taught your children to obey you.

You may not sound hostile, exactly -- but you certainly sound as though
you think you are a better parent than I am, and that my choices were
inferior.

If *I* sound hostile -- well, having someone smugly say that THEY would
never resort to the things *I* did because THEY taught their children to
behave properly does tend to make me get my hackles up.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Marijke" wrote:

You may not sound hostile, exactly -- but you certainly sound as though
you think you are a better parent than I am, and that my choices were
inferior.

If *I* sound hostile -- well, having someone smugly say that THEY would
never resort to the things *I* did because THEY taught their children to
behave properly does tend to make me get my hackles up.


Wow!! I guess you know me better than I know myself. That's certainly what
your posts imply. Why don't you just write my answers for me and tell me
what I think - that would save me an awful lot of time and effort.


Think what you want. I answered the question. You took it way beyond that.
I'm not the one who is upset.

Enough said.

M