logical consequences for young children are punitive

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Ok, well maybe that's why I am confused.

I am not (unintentionally) punitive because I ever want my kids to "learn their lesson".

I don't think my parents ever wanted me to "learn a lesson" - they were just parenting the best way they knew how.

It's just hard in the heat of the moment to not do what you were raised to do.

When you know better, you do better. That type of thing.

Right. What I'm saying is you learned your child couldn't handle being outside and not running towards the road so you made the change in environment (came inside). It's not a 'learned a new parenting skill' thing, but a 'today this child's needs help with this, so I provide this boundary' ..... learning the unique (and constantly changing) things about our children.

An example from my life, after a bit of a hard weekend with ds, I re-learned (and how I forgot this I don't know ) that ds NEEDS protein first thing in the morning. I am not punishing my son with bacon, but I am setting him up for success by making sure that his breakfast options are bacon, sausage or almond butter centered. Yes, with his health concerns, he does need to learn to recognize when things are out of wack internally, but until he has a more healthy internal to compare 'out of wack' to and the maturity to communicate those things, I need to remember the lessons I have learned that set him up for success physically and not just blame him for things beyond his ability to control. (I learn about him and give good boundaries for success, until he is able to learn about consequences of not sticking to his diet)

[twoplustwo]

Originally Posted by CelticJourney

I am not punishing my son with bacon,

Oooh, I really like that example!

[rjy9343]

I think I get what you are saying, Elizabeth. Logical consequences are also for the parent. With your protein example, your son needs it to function. The logical consequence for you is to make sure he has enough protein to allow him to function. The more punitive approach would be to maybe isolate or ground him for being grouchy. I think that we are all more or less on the same page as far as not punishing, we are just using different words.
I also fail to see the punishment in telling your three year old that if he hits his brother with the sword, you will have to take it from him to keep everyone safe. I think it is something you do both to and for the child. He is too young to understand the why of hitting, so you have to be the control for him.
I am glad I am not the only one who is wondering where exactly is the love in this love and logic book. I knew it not what we would call gentle, but the lengths this book goes is amazing.

[ReadingMommy]

OK, I think I sort of get what is being said here about the parents being the ones to "learn the lesson, and I agree with that in many situations. But how does this realistically play out when it's not a situation that can be consistently controlled for? For example, my 7yo is too rough with my 4yo. They can be playing nicely, and then 7yo starts using his physical superiority to control whatever it is he wants to control.

If I am the one who is supposed to be learning the lesson, what lesson am I learning? Obviously, I can't forbid my kids from ever playing together because 7yo is not mature enough to handle it. In the myriad of settings this might occur, I can't always predict and catch it before it is about to happen. I can't let my 4yo be consistently hurt. The best solution I can see is for my 7yo to somehow "learn" to cooperate with the boundary of using his words instead of his hands. It is a matter of safety for my 4yo, but not something that can just be delayed until he is older. So in a case I this, I need a gentle way for *him* (not me) to "learn a lesson". If that is punitive, then it seems like forbidding my children to play together or allowing my son to continue being being rough with DD would be even worse.

[teamommy]

What I disagree with in these discussions is not the general principles, but with what we are talking about here with the development of logic and when it happens.

I believe there is disagreement even among experts on when logical understanding develops, and then of course it varies with the child somewhat. I think most would agree with that.

Children aren't really fully logical and rational at 10, either, as anyone who has tried to reason with their 11 or 12 (or older) year old at times has discovered. And I think we all could agree on that. Also that a toddler or young preschooler has very little to no understanding of logic.

So what sort of logic do we think needs to be present before children can understand logical consequences? For me, I don't think they need advanced reasoning ability to understand that "When I do this, this will happen." That is something they are learning from day one on this earth. And understanding patterns like this is something that is present to a pretty complex degree for sure by 5 or 6 IME. Looking at the standard Piagetan definitions I can find online, I see a "concrete logic" stage is from about 7-11 and understanding abstractions develops from 12 and up (I happen to think this varies a LOT, but I still think the basic parenting things we are talking about apply more to "concrete logic" than the abstract). I have no problem with logical consequences from this age and do use them. Yes, setting them up for success is important, and intent is important, but in these discussions I always feel like there is some element of semantics, because sometimes no matter how it is handled, a particular child is going to feel punished, whether we intend that or not, even though not having the consequence is not a reasonable option. (I know examples would help here). I see logical consequences as simply maintaining limits or boundaries, and while I aspire to be kind, gentle, and all of those good things, I see logical consequences as good and kind parenting and important in teaching my children.

[CelticJourney]

Re ReadingMommy: Maybe there is something to the length of time they play together that effects the result. Maybe more supervision (which stinks because it takes away our time to get things done). Maybe it's what they play. For example, I don't often let ds play Mario Kart with dd17. For some reason he can't handle losing to her - anyone else, sure, but dd and he's 'kaboom'. I've learned that if I allow that game, I encourage him to play with dd20 OR I stay within ear shot to step in before the big lose of temper.

And we can't control everything, we can only do our best with what is in front of us.

I also fail to see the punishment in telling your three year old that if he hits his brother with the sword, you will have to take it from him to keep everyone safe. I think it is something you do both to and for the child. He is too young to understand the why of hitting, so you have to be the control for him.

Yes, I'm agreeing with that. I am agreeing with Crystal that it is punitive when the taking of the sword is done to 'teach a lesson' or 'impose a negative experience to teach' under the label of 'logical consequence' with pre-logical children. I think we are on the same page with that

[Aerynne]

I just imposed a logical consequence with my 8yo. He is supposed to unload the dishwasher every morning. Yesterday he didn't do it- in fact he didn't do it until this morning. When the dishwasher isn't unloaded, I can't load it so I didn't load the dishwasher last night (I barely had any time anyway, but if it's not unloaded that's one more thing). So this morning he had to do yesterday's dishes. I had other things I needed to do this morning. I still ended up having to do the dishes that wouldn't fit in the dishwasher and it still took a lot of my morning but if ds doesn't do the dishes when he's supposed to, then it sets everything back.

I actually hope he does learn (by that or by some other way) to do his dishwasher every morning because it sets ME back when he doesn't unload it. He doesn't mind doing the dishes, which is fine because I am not trying to make him sad- I am just trying to make sure everything gets done and teach him responsibility.

AFAIC, if I'm not trying to make him sad then I don't see how this could be punitive in any way.

[ArmsOfLove]

Originally Posted by Chaos Coordinator

I like the word solution. Like. When 3yo wont leave 2yo alone, separating them until his brain is un-stuck is a solution. It's not something I'm trying to do TO him, so much as something I'm trying to do to diffuse the situation.


One thing ive been working on when I have to take away video games or cut back on (fill in the blank) is telling them "you can try again when you're a little older". Instead of a punitive approach which would be "you're grounded for a month" or whatever, it's simply "you're not ready and we will try again later"

Originally Posted by rjy9343

Logical consequences never seemed punitive to me until I started reading parenting with love and logic. (My husband has it and I thought maybe I better see what is in it now before he implements it and then it becomes a power struggle). Logical consequences are just code for punishment or even revenge in that book. So I can see how logical consequences can be nothing more than a way to feel good about punishing. But a logical consequence is supposed to be a solution to a problem, not pay back. Using the mall example earlier, my niece was nearly six when I did that. She is used to being told no automatically, so her way of getting what she wanted was to run before you could stop her. What she learned that day was two fold, she saw just how large the mall is and how easily she could be lost. The second thing she learned is that if she saw something and wanted to look a little longer, then all she had to do was ask and she could do it. There was also the side benefit of getting a lot big muscle movement in that day.
ETA: I had my timetables confused. My niece was nearly seven, not six like I said earlier. Sorry about that.

According to the things I've read, pre-logic is developing around 8-10 for boys and a little earlier for girls - and obviously developmental stages are going to vary bit because children are individuals, but most often I still say err on the side of love because Love and Logic IS punitive! However, with your dh reading that book and thinking in those ways I would probably say use that language so that your dh sees that you're doing "something" and then you know you're using Solutions Same reason I try to take a young child out of the room to talk to them about what is going on - I know all the Ezzo parents are thinking I'm spanking and, frankly, I don't care what they think in that moment. What I want to avoid is their unsolicited advice about what I should be doing instead of talking to my child.

Originally Posted by Aerynne

When I read Parenting with Love and Logic, I thought "I see the logic, but where is the love?" The sad thing is that my state uses those classes as training for foster parents.

Exactly! Now, take away the ability of the child to see the logic and there's no love OR logic from their perspective.

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Natural consequences can hurt or terrify a child more than logical consequences.

For instance, my dd (toddler at the time) HATE being in the stroller, in the grocery cart. One time after we talked about not running away, I let her out of the cart at the store. She ran away.

Logical consequence - I pick her up & put in back in the stroller.
She kicks and screams but I need to keep her safe & also, we need groceries.

Natural consequence, gentleman steps out from behind a fruit stand & says kindly Hello little girl! Dd, who is TERRIFIED of all strangers, run screaming & crying back to me. She is more upset at the natural than the logical, which is pretty standard in some cases.

This is why I take the position that I will prevent the Natural Consequences until my child is ready to survive and learn from them.

She is still pre-logic. So in this case, the natural consequence is not punitive because its natural, even if the consequence is worse than the logical one? But is the logical consequence punitive?

Are you imposing it on the child to try and get them to learn the lesson? If so, yes, it's from a punitive place. Think about it this way - your child IS learning a lesson from you preventing the natural consequences. You might not see the result of that lesson in that moment - but as they begin to understand what you've been doing they will get it. They really will.

What you do when you prevent natural consequences they aren't ready to survive and learn from you are creating habits of positive behavior.

The only way to set her up for success is to never take her anywhere that she can't run free.

This is why a better question than "what logical consequence can I impose?" is "how can I set my child up for success?"

Yes, one way is to never take them anywhere they can't run free. If you have older children who can watch them or a dh to leave them home with, or whatever, you might make that choice. I do that with grocery stores when my children are young because *I* have a hard time remembering what I have to get and not getting a bunch of extra stuff when I am spending more attention with the behavior lessons than shopping.

I would take them with me to other places and before we got out of the van I'd remind them they could ride in the stroller or the cart, ride in the sling (if that was an option), use the tether (when I was teaching about how far away from me was safe), or hold my hand. What do you want to do? If you stop doing that I will insist you do . . . (usually stroller/cart/sling at that point).

Preventing Natural Consequences is not the same as avoiding the situation where that Natural Consequence would be presented.

To take it one step further. I do not spank. I was not spanked as a discipline method (but they were punitive) so even if I didn't gd I wouldn't spank.

But obviously spanking is a better and a more gentle method for a toddler running the street with a car coming than the natural consequence? And setting my toddler up for success would involve never letting her play in the front yard which would be upsetting and unlogical to her (I mean its right there, she can see it!)

So isnt the logical consequence of you go in the street we go inside for the day, the most gentle and easiest to comprehend response? Even more so than not giving her the chance to her play in the front yard (setting her up for success)?

Not even sure if any that makes any sense or not. Just trying to figure it out.

In order to prevent my young children from running into the street (preventing the Natural Consequence of being hit by a car and dying) I didn't make them stay in the house all the time. Rather, I made sure someone was out there with them and keeping them closer to the house as they played so that they didn't get to be near the street where they might run If I had a runner inclined to go to the road I would hover or put a chair between their play area and the road, or take them in a backyard that was enclosed.

Setting up for success = not letting unacceptable things happen so much as it's within my control. Which means, consider and foresee the possible issues and then have a plan in place to try and make sure those issues are avoided.

Does that help?

Regardless, it is still ME who needs to do the learning. I do tend to blur the punitive & consequence line but I get a little better every day. But thinking it through helps me keep that line more clear!

And this is why, even though it does, to some extent, come down to semantics, I think it's an important distinction. So much of our mindset IS in the semantic details.

If we're always, with young children, looking for the logical consequence, we're in punitive mindset. "What can I impose on the child to make this stop?" is revealing a punitive perspective. Challenging that perspective is one of the purpose for this forum

Consequences come *after* behavior.
Planning and prevention come *before* the problem behavior even has a chance to occur.

After the child really knows and understands the lesson by all means wait and give them a chance to succeed and work with them to have a logical consequence in place . . . it's just that time is a lot later than the parent usually thinks. Because, if the child really understands the lesson it means they are actually being successful at it most of the time and the times they aren't are rare and caused by, say, distraction or lack of healthy priorities, etc. *Not* the idea that they can repeat it back to you or tell you if you ask.

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Ok, well maybe that's why I am confused.

I am not (unintentionally) punitive because I ever want my kids to "learn their lesson".

I don't think my parents ever wanted me to "learn a lesson" - they were just parenting the best way they knew how.

Wanting your children to learn a lesson is not inherently punitive. Believing that you need to impose something on your child to make sure they do learn their lesson is.

It's just hard in the heat of the moment to not do what you were raised to do.

When you know better, you do better. That type of thing.

Right - except I would say when you *understand* better, you do better, which is the purpose of this forum and exactly why I started this thread

You *know* you don't want to punish. Now you're learning to reframe your thinking, learning a new vocabulary to talk about things so that you aren't slipping into old thought patterns, developing and learning tools for yourself and to share with your child, etc.

This is why semantics is a very worthwhile thing to delve into

Originally Posted by teamommy

What I disagree with in these discussions is not the general principles, but with what we are talking about here with the development of logic and when it happens.

I believe there is disagreement even among experts on when logical understanding develops, and then of course it varies with the child somewhat. I think most would agree with that.

Children aren't really fully logical and rational at 10, either, as anyone who has tried to reason with their 11 or 12 (or older) year old at times has discovered. And I think we all could agree on that. Also that a toddler or young preschooler has very little to no understanding of logic.

Logic and Reason are not the same things and you're right that children 11 or 12 don't have reason. Everything I've read leans more towards 14 or so being when they are developing reason.

All of it is a spectrum, but even at the beginning of developing pre-logic (8-ish) you can't treat the child like they "have logic" and expect them to get it because of that.

So what sort of logic do we think needs to be present before children can understand logical consequences? For me, I don't think they need advanced reasoning ability to understand that "When I do this, this will happen." That is something they are learning from day one on this earth. And understanding patterns like this is something that is present to a pretty complex degree for sure by 5 or 6 IME.

Simple "if/then" such as "if I drop my peas over the edge of my high chair they fall on the floor EVERY TIME" is not developed logic where imposed logic is something they can see the connections for. Approaching it that way is one of those "great idea if the child's brain was working like the adult imposing the consequence - because the child isn't getting the logic and they aren't learning the lesson the parent thinks."

Looking at the standard Piagetan definitions I can find online, I see a "concrete logic" stage is from about 7-11 and understanding abstractions develops from 12 and up (I happen to think this varies a LOT, but I still think the basic parenting things we are talking about apply more to "concrete logic" than the abstract).

Developing logic and developing reason means they don't have it - they are beginning to get it. those ages are within the ranges i'm talking about. Generally the things I've read talk about 7ish being the early age for some girls and 11 would be a child who is going a little longer - but the 8-10 range is definitely well within that

I have no problem with logical consequences from this age and do use them.

If by that statement you mean, "Imposing a logical consequence because I believe they will learn the lesson because of what they lose," then you're expressing a punitive dynamic. The reason I'm challenging that is that people come to this forum to learn a different dynamic and if the questions and answers are all about what consequence this and have you tried this consequence that then we're not fulfilling the purpose of this forum *and* we're triggering people to slip back into punitive mindsets. That's a disservice.

Yes, setting them up for success is important, and intent is important, but in these discussions I always feel like there is some element of semantics, because sometimes no matter how it is handled, a particular child is going to feel punished, whether we intend that or not, even though not having the consequence is not a reasonable option. (I know examples would help here). I see logical consequences as simply maintaining limits or boundaries, and while I aspire to be kind, gentle, and all of those good things, I see logical consequences as good and kind parenting and important in teaching my children.

It is exactly semantics - because words have their dictionary definition but they also affect us and if you're going around with a young child trying to come up with the consequences for this and that you're stuck in a punitive mindset - and that will affect what you do, how far you go with that, how successful you are with it, and the relationship.

Again, by all means, if a child is hitting someone with a stick, take it away. Just don't expect them to learn the lesson of "losing the stick." And don't let them have it later that day so that they can hit someone again. Resolve the immediate situation and then evaluate they issues involved and come at it a different way so that the lesson the child learns is the lesson of being successful. If that means they don't get the stick, don't give them the stick. If it means a soft nerf stick, give them that. If it means teaching them a new game and redirecting them, do that, etc.

The dynamic of relying on logical consequences to teach lessons is missing all of the opportunities that a different, gentle discipline, dynamic present. The purpose of this forum is learning that different dynamic and mining the rich earth of those opportunities.

Maybe you could say relying on logical consequences is like frakking - it sometimes works in the moment and you can get some benefit from it, but it's mostly just below the surface and not deep and it will eventually cause you to have earthquakes because you're undermining the foundation.

Gentle Discipline is like harnessing all of the natural resources that the child willingly offers and working with them to create a world of learning opportunities as the child is ready to learn and, until they are ready, you shape the world around them and protect them until they are. Plugging in the electric car isn't punishing it - switching from the use of running water to wind as the seasons or landscape change isn't punishment. They are things you know you're going to need to do when you are working with those resources so you learn the places where you can plug in the car, and you make sure the windmill is ready before the creek freezes.

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Aerynne

I just imposed a logical consequence with my 8yo. He is supposed to unload the dishwasher every morning. Yesterday he didn't do it- in fact he didn't do it until this morning. When the dishwasher isn't unloaded, I can't load it so I didn't load the dishwasher last night (I barely had any time anyway, but if it's not unloaded that's one more thing). So this morning he had to do yesterday's dishes. I had other things I needed to do this morning. I still ended up having to do the dishes that wouldn't fit in the dishwasher and it still took a lot of my morning but if ds doesn't do the dishes when he's supposed to, then it sets everything back.

I actually hope he does learn (by that or by some other way) to do his dishwasher every morning because it sets ME back when he doesn't unload it. He doesn't mind doing the dishes, which is fine because I am not trying to make him sad- I am just trying to make sure everything gets done and teach him responsibility.

AFAIC, if I'm not trying to make him sad then I don't see how this could be punitive in any way.

And I would say you are thinking punitively - but I don't disagree with what you did.

You will probably be frustrated with the fact that he's going to forget again and again until he developmentally is in that place where he doesn't - because it will seem the logical consequence isn't doing its job. And it becomes very easy at that point to try and impose MORE consequence, or find a "more effective" consequence.

What I would say is that there is inherent value in finishing your work and not doing it yesterday means it's still waiting today. That is a natural consequence. Insisting that a child do their chores isn't a consequence - it's parenting. And by doing that without another word about them not doing it yesterday, or why didn't they do it, or when you don't do it you create this and that and all of the such, they will learn to do their work and finish it. In fact, all that other stuff is piggy backing and usually interferes with the lesson (I'm not saying you did that - I have no idea - but building on the example and what many of us do or struggle to not do).

Those things can, however, be great things to talk about *away from* the immediate issue and they can be part of helping him learn how to consider other people, etc., etc.

Breaking them into different issues and approaching them in different ways and at different times is much more effective ime.

[teamommy]

Thank you, AOL, I think I understand better now what your first post was about. And I've read around a little more and think I might understand why you wrote it.

And I read the OP again and agree that really, logical consequences at any stage can't be counted on to "teach a lesson." I guess that doesn't change the fact that sometimes I believe I need to use them. I agree that it can change the attitude and relationship dynamics around them, though.

[Chaos Coordinator]

The problem that I have run bang on into though is that I am basically just always making excuses for my child . I'm trying to be cognizant of this after having had multiple people point it out to me repeatedly. I am not sure where the break down is.


Every time a child misbehaves I'd say "oh he got some red marker on his hands " "oh he's been cooped up from the rain" "oh he's going through a growth spurt" and so forth.

My child heard this going on and began to make excuses for himself. The message it sent him was "I can do whatever I want because excuses". I had to turn it back onto him and have been working on teaching him that excuses aside he absolutely is responsible for his own choices. I can only do so much leg work for helping him be successful - I can't force him to behave and there *is* a consequence for poor decisions, whether natural, logical, or otherwise, and it's not always imposed by me, either. It's his responsibility to control his actions.


Maybe it's different Bc of his giftedness/adHd combo? He's likely aware of things in a different way and also more prone to outbursts and forced to learn how to moderate himself when his adHd is making difficult. I dont know.


Let's face it. That's my parenting mantra. I don't know. I'm just trying really hard to not be a jerk basically!

[ArmsOfLove]

Originally Posted by teamommy

Thank you, AOL, I think I understand better now what your first post was about. And I've read around a little more and think I might understand why you wrote it.

And I read the OP again and agree that really, logical consequences at any stage can't be counted on to "teach a lesson." I guess that doesn't change the fact that sometimes I believe I need to use them. I agree that it can change the attitude and relationship dynamics around them, though.

It's something I struggle with in some of the relationships with my younger children. And it's something that tends to become an issue when outside factors interfere with a child learning something in the optimum way at the optimum time. I have to remember it doesn't mean I can get frustrated and start trying to force the lesson later - I still need to facilitate the learning in a good dynamic. It's definitely hard though - I totally get that!

[tazmom]

relevent, related, respectful

This has been the definition of logical consequences for a long time. I don't understand why it suddenly isn't. When did it suddenly get redefined as Solutions?

Maybe societal trends (Love & Logic ) have changed the meaning, maybe it's semantics, but I still don't understand why it is being argued that logical consequences are inherently punitive.

There are times we cannot set up a child for success. When my child is constantly stealing things, I can't lock her in an empty room all day to prevent her from taking other people's things.

There are times when we have to do something after the fact because the natural consequences were either too severe or do not deter the child. I'm not going to call the police to take my child to jail for stealing (natural consequence) and she doesn't care at all that she is hurting others by taking their things. It is my job as her parent to find a way to teach her this behavior is not okay in a way that is relevant, related, and respectful to her. That is what logical consequences are. That may mean she has to pay back what she stole, plus a little extra (similar to what is outlined in the Torah). I don't believe that is punitive.

Pre-logic stage is approximately 5-10 years old (depending on the developmental theory you subscribe to and how you define logic). Pre-logic stage is when they are developing logic, not when they don't have it at all. Logical consequences can be as simple as when you spill, you clean it up. To not use logical consequences, because you don't think it will teach the child not to spill, would be permissive.

I have seen some threads on here lately that should read, "Help me come up with a punishment" and that is concerning. But I find the blanket statement that all logical consequences are punitive to children under 10 to be unsettling.

[teamommy]

Originally Posted by Aerynne

I just imposed a logical consequence with my 8yo. He is supposed to unload the dishwasher every morning. Yesterday he didn't do it- in fact he didn't do it until this morning. When the dishwasher isn't unloaded, I can't load it so I didn't load the dishwasher last night (I barely had any time anyway, but if it's not unloaded that's one more thing). So this morning he had to do yesterday's dishes. I had other things I needed to do this morning. I still ended up having to do the dishes that wouldn't fit in the dishwasher and it still took a lot of my morning but if ds doesn't do the dishes when he's supposed to, then it sets everything back.

I actually hope he does learn (by that or by some other way) to do his dishwasher every morning because it sets ME back when he doesn't unload it. He doesn't mind doing the dishes, which is fine because I am not trying to make him sad- I am just trying to make sure everything gets done and teach him responsibility.

AFAIC, if I'm not trying to make him sad then I don't see how this could be punitive in any way.

Ok, here's a great example. I have gone through the same thing with a child about the same age. With the same consequence, except not waiting til the next morning but saying that if the dishes weren't unloaded by the time I was ready to load up again at lunchtime, the child would have to unload and load.

So what happened was that I discovered that it made no difference in how well this child remembered to do the dishes. If it did, it wasn't enough for me to notice. I still think it was fair, but I also realized it would be better if I helped him to develop the habit to consistently do the chore right before breakfast in the first place. For us this was reminders and, at first, consistently insisting he do it first thing before he got started on something else (as in, standing at the dishwasher saying, come do this right now). For someone else it might be a chore chart or dropping a marble in a jar when it was done, or something else. Now if I do that and he drags his feet, the consequence is still there, but it's very matter of fact and logical-- if you don't get your chore done, someone else can't do their work and you might have to do theirs, too. But it takes time to get that and my goal should really be to help him be responsible for what he needs to do on his own. Having him do the extra if he doesn't hold up his end is fair to me and to him, IMO (and I ask and expect the kids to do lots of little things around the house when I need help, so it's really along the same lines), but if I expect him to always do his chore without forgetting, I may be waiting a long time for it to sink in if my only method is the imposed consequence.

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by tazmom

.... I find the blanket statement that all logical consequences are punitive to children under 10 to be unsettling.

I don't think that is what has been said.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by teamommy

...So what happened was that I discovered that it made no difference in how well this child remembered to do the dishes.... I also realized it would be better if I helped him to develop the habit to consistently do the chore right before breakfast in the first place. ... But it takes time to get that and my goal should really be to help him be responsible for what he needs to do on his own. .... but if I expect him to always do his chore without forgetting, I may be waiting a long time for it to sink in if my only method is the imposed consequence.

Yes....as parents we are part of the dynamic and waiting to impose a consequence over and over when learning is not happening or, in some cases, possible rather than set them up for success when we see the opportunity is what I am seeing as punitive.

[Aerynne]

IME with my kids, the logical consequences do work. Not all the time, and not if they are developmentally not ready for it, but they do learn to, for example, do it right so they won't have to do it again, or do it now so it won't be more work later. But even if they don't, the logical consequences help me not have to have more heaped on my plate because of their forgetfulness. For example if a child leaves something out such that their little brother gets ahold of it, something that is normally kept out of his reach, then they have to clean it up (and we usually try to get little brother to help, even if he just does one tiny thing, but if not then the kid who left the thing out has to do it). Because of that they ARE more careful, and if they aren't it helps them take responsibility for not being careful, and if not it at least makes it so I don't have to clean up more messes than I already clean up.

I stand by the consequence I gave my ds this morning. If that is punitive, then I guess I am punitive. But I don't think I am punitive. I don't believe in punishment. I do find that logical consequences help my kids learn to be more responsible, so I am going to continue to use them.

The problem with calling methods punitive here, though, especially if you're an admin, is it sounds a lot like telling us we're in violation of the SoB and you know that means that we either have to get with the program (convert to your way of thinking) or we don't belong at gcm. I hope you don't mean it to sound that way but to me it does. So I guess I'd like some clarification of if you're posting as an admin or a member with an opinion AND if what you're posting is the official position of gcm such that you're saying that we don't belong here if we don't agree.