Practical Discipline

Practical Discipline, or Love in Action

We avoid a lot of disciplinary issues by structuring our day, and our house rules, in such a way that there are built in rewards through the day for good behavior (cleanup comes before playtime). And we try not to make an issue of something unless it is important. I expect good things from my kids, and I always try to believe the best of them, while knowing full well that they WILL do things that are wrong, and I'll have to deal with it.

Limits are important, and children do key in on whether or not you care enough to set limits. Limits are ineffective without a consequence if the limit is overstepped, but the purpose of discipline is teaching, not just controlling.

A wise parent sets limits for logical reasons. Any behavior that will result in harm to the child, or which will harm another, or damage the property of another, is considered unacceptable behavior. Parents have differing standards on what constitutes inappropriate behavior and what does not.

In one home, feet on the couch are not allowed. In another they may be, but standing on the furniture is not. Some parents consider some behaviors to be more dangerous than others. So WHAT you consider to be unacceptable is not specifically the issue here. I'll not tell you where to draw the line. I have a guideline, which will give you a way to tell if the expectation is reasonable.

Your rules about what is acceptable should be measured up against some kind of standard. For us, it is, “Is this really important in the long term?”

I don't allow whistling in the house. It is a peculiarity that I have, that the sound is so annoying to me that it makes me irritable. I don't know why this is so, but it is. At one time, I felt like telling the kids not to was purely selfish on my part. But it isn't. For some reason, it irritates me at a deep level. Asking them to not do so, out of consideration for me, is not a negative thing. It teaches them that it is good to be considerate of the things that irritate others.

Of course there are more important things than that, I just use this as an example of a little thing that might not make sense in every home, but which is a rule in our home for individual reasons.

For things that involve personal safety, there can be no question of having to set limits – to fail to do so is to risk your child's life or health. Things like staying in the yard to play, wearing a seatbelt or staying in a carseat, or not going outside without permission may all fall under this umbrella, depending on where you live. Playing with stove controls, climbing shelves, or other things that children have to be taught not to do also fall into this category.

When a child behaves in a way that could harm someone else, it is just as serious as personal safety issues. Unbuckling a sibling in the car, throwing something in anger or thoughtlessly, physically or emotionally abusive behaviors, etc, which pose a risk or present harm to someone else must be addressed in a way that helps the child understand that a line has been crossed that must not be crossed again.

Personal safety issues are what one parenting authority years ago labeled as “Red Zone” behavior. At the time, they advocated that this was the only thing deserving of physical punishment such as a swat on the bottom. In many states now, to do even that would result in child abuse charges. I would not recommend spanking, in any form, as a potential solution, because nothing is worth losing your children over.

Red Zone behavior still needs an immediate reaction. Speed is critical here, the faster you react, the more likely your child is to realize that you really mean it. Removal of freedom, in one way or another, is an appropriate way to deal with this. Depending on the age of the child, you can hold onto their hand just long enough that they get the message, hold them on your lap – very still, with no toys – or put them in a playpen if they are young, or timeout of they are older, or some other way of appropriately depriving them of their freedom temporarily.

In the car, for a very young child who has just learned to escape their carseat or seatbelt, the best response is to very quickly pull over and buckle them back in, letting them know as you do that they did something wrong and must not do it again. You have to pull over as SOON as you see them unbuckle. And you can expect that you will get back into the car, and that they will do it again, right away. It is imperative that you pull over again and do the same thing you did before, and put them back in the seat. They will test you a few more times. Keep responding the same way, because what they want to know is whether you will allow them to do it ANY time. Your response must firmly be “NO”.

For older children, we handle misbehaviors in the car by having them put their hands up in the air. It gets a little achy after a minute or two. If your hands cannot behave though, they have to be where Mom or Dad can see them until they are sure they can behave themselves again.

In the home, Red Zone behaviors might be handled with a cold shower if this is something that you feel is appropriate for the child. Never longer than about 15 seconds, because you do not want to seriously chill the child. Your goal is to give them an unpleasant tactile experience that lasts just long enough to feel uncomfortable, but not long enough to hurt or harm.

When you fail to teach your children to respect the property of others, you are teaching them to be inconsiderate. A loving parent teaches a child to respect how other people feel, and to not cause problems for other people by their behavior. To do less is to set your child up for social failure in the short term, and long term, to seriously impair their ability to maintain healthy relationships with others.

This category of behaviors is different than Red Zone behaviors. It is less immediate. In fact, it is good to teach the child to consider how they might make amends if they are old enough to do so. Appropriate consequences involve loss of freedom in younger children, and apologies and restitution in older ones. An older child may still need a consequence involving loss of freedom if what they do cannot be made better by restitution, or if what they did could have resulted in worse damage than it did. We usually restrict them in some way until they have completed the process of restitution insofar as they are capable of doing.

Consequences are important in discipline. A consequence is simply a cause and effect reaction. Often, nature provides a natural consequence, or will eventually, but nature tends to be very harsh and we'd rather our kids not have to learn that way!

Any consequence we supply will be more effective if it is related to what the child did. And it has to be a consequence that the child does not like (this in no way suggests abuse). Yelling is not a consequence. Yelling may make you feel justified, but it is not a consequence. It is just a way for you to try to impress your anger on the child, and your anger is NOT the point. If your anger is the only reason they obey, then as soon as you are out of the picture, they will have no reason to continue to obey. There have to be deeper reasons for obeying than just because it makes mom or dad mad.

The point is that they did something wrong, and you need to teach them not to do so again. In order to do that, you need to impart an understanding of why it was wrong, so they know you have a valid reason (if they are old enough to understand this), and there needs to be a consequence so they will have good reason not to do so again. Also, because in the mind of a child, if there is no consequence, it is not really important enough to bother remembering.

Sometimes when I hand out a consequence, I'll tell my child, “I am not punishing you. I am going to do this every time you do that, so that you will remember not to do it again.” And it is true. A good consequence helps the child learn to be better, by providing the motivation to move learning the concept to the top of their priorities.

Now, this next concept is one of the most important discipline concepts I have ever learned. If you can grasp this, and implement it, it will truly provide you with a key that can work miracles.

The size of the consequence is not important, consistency is. Consistent small consequences are far more effective than erratic big ones.

Did you get that? See, when a child does something wrong, we want to make sure they don't do it again, so we give them a consequence. They do it again, so we think we have to give them a BIGGER consequence. Then they do it AGAIN! See where this is going? Pretty soon the only options left are abusive ones.

Also, if the size of the crime is related to the size of the punishment, and they do something so big you give them the WORST consequence you can think of, what are you going to do if they do it again? You run out of options very fast, or end up abusing a child because you think they are not getting it!

It helps if you understand that discipline involves more than just crime -> punishment. It involves teaching, training (by repetition), and reminding. Human nature plays a big role here, and if you understand what their nature will impel them to do, you'll better be able to react appropriately.

A child takes at LEAST three repetitions of any concept in order to internalize it. Some children take more. So, if you give them cause -> effect, cause -> different effect, cause ->totally different effect, then you are actually giving a less effective discipline than if you gave the SAME consequence every time. It does not matter if the consequence IS larger each time. Consistency is always more effective than inconsistency.

Sometimes, we assume that when we give a child a consequence and they do it again, that they didn't get the point, when in fact, what they are asking is, “Will the same thing happen every time?” If you are inconsistent, then it takes them an extra repetition or two to come to the conclusion that it will ALWAYS be something they don't like. If you do the same thing every time, and you know they don't like it, then they internalize the message more quickly.

Choose the consequence carefully the first time. Make sure that it is appropriate to the misbehavior, and that it will be unpleasant to the child in question. It does not need to be painful to work. Discomfort, inconvenience, or removal of something they enjoy will be something they don't like to have happen. You just have to know what motivates the child in question so you can target it for them.

Time out can be a good consequence for some children, a terrible one for others. Removal of privileges works great for some kids, but others just never connect it up (or what you consider to be a privilege does not mean anything to them). Each kid is different, and what works for one may not work for another. Most of the things we do work for all the kids. But in some situations, we have to adapt certain types of consequences for certain kids. We have one that grounding never works for – he is just as happy inside his head as he is anywhere else. We have one that if you touched her while disciplining her, it would backfire into a control battle that would last for hours. Another one will do almost anything if you just explain why in a way he can understand, but if he does not understand you'll never make progress no matter how severe the consequence.

The last section in this chapter has to do with unrealistic control expectations. Many people have been raised with some false concepts, which they are not even aware they possess, which sabotage their ability to be effective parents.

The first myth is that Control is a dirty word. That it is wrong to “control” your child.

It isn't. There is appropriate control, and inappropriate control.

Holding the hand of a young child in the parking lot is a good example of appropriate control. It teaches the child to be careful in the parking lot, it does not hurt them in any way, and it still allows them the maximum freedom to safely do for themselves what they can. The parent takes control because the child is not yet capable, and because it is important to do so.

Forcing a child to eat their peas is an example of unreasonable control. First of all, it is a battle you cannot win, and second, it is all about you winning, not about what is truly important. It really isn't going to hurt the child if they don't eat the peas. It won't hurt anyone if the child does not eat the peas. It will only make you feel like you won. BAD GOAL!!!

Getting into a control battle with a child, which never needed to be there in the first place, is not a good idea. Before you even enter that battle you need to decide whether it is important long term. If it is, then stick it out. If, like peas, it really isn't, then don't start it in the first place, because you, as the parent, can decide not to make it a battle if you choose.

But appropriate control is not a bad thing. You place limits on a child that are there for their own safety, or to teach them valuable coping skills in life. If they are important limits, then they must be reinforced with consequences. And at times that means, if the child cannot make appropriate choices, that they lose the privilege of being able to make those choices for a time.

An effective parent gives the child the greatest possible freedom to exercise choices appropriately. Choosing their own clothes when they are very young, even if the clothes are not the best match, choosing foods from a selection that you provide, even if they go all with one thing, choosing their own haircut style, even if you'd rather they left it long or kept it short, etc. Individuality and obedience are two separate areas, and if you decide carefully what you need to limit and what you don't, your child will have full freedom to become their own unique self, without having to disobey to do it (they'll disobey anyway, just because they have to test their world, but you'll avoid a lot of unnecessary control battles).

A parent should teach correct principles to their children, but never try to decide for the child how they should feel, what they like, or whom they feel comfortable around. Teach understanding, but allow individuality.

The second myth is that if you were a good enough parent, your child would not disobey. IT'S A LIE!

This one isn't anything anyone has ever even told you. But it is implied in our society in many ways, and if your parents had control issues of that type, then you got a full dose of it in all kinds of subtle ways when you were growing up, and possibly still do now that you are a parent yourself. People who send you this message are not aware they are sending it. They don't even know they think that way themselves!

This myth is possibly responsible for more abuse than anything else other than alcohol or drugs. Because it sets you up for failure, and it sets you up to abuse. It places an impossible, and incorrect standard on you, that you can never measure up to, and which would be wrong if you did.

Your children come to earth as individuals. They have the ability to choose right and wrong. Teaching them correctly will increase the likelihood that they will choose right, and decrease the amount that they choose wrong, but they will STILL disobey!

If you feel deep inside that your kids would obey if you were a better parent, then their misbehavior is going to set you up for feelings of frustration and failure. After a while, it will feel like they do it because they don't love you, or each time they do something wrong it will feel like someone is accusing you of fault. Either way, it will make you feel angry and helpless, and like a failure as a parent. And like you have to do something more drastic to make it work next time. This is a terrible burden to bear, and a completely unnecessary one. Borne long, it will destroy the loving strength in your family relationships, and replace it with fear, frustration, anger, and hurt.

A woman I know told a story of her two year old son. He stood in front of the woodstove one day, looking at it. She told him not to touch it, it was hot and would hurt him. He looked at the stove, looked at her, and then reached out and placed the flat of his hand directly on the front of it.

Amidst wails of pain she took him to the emergency room, where he was bandaged up and sent home. Gradually the burns healed, and after about two weeks the doctor removed the bandaging and sent him back home, his hand still pink with new skin.

On their arrival home, he walked into the house, and approached the stove. He looked at it, looked at his mom, and then stuck out his hand and did the same thing he had done before! Another trip to the emergency room, and another lengthy healing process.

After coming home after the bandages were removed, he did not touch the stove. But when a neighbor came to visit, he took her by the hand, lead her to the stove, and gravely told her, “Hot!”.

He had to learn that not only was it hot just like his mother said, but that it was hot EVERY TIME, and that hot hurt every time.

Kids have to test their world. When you tell them that something will happen if they do something wrong, they have to learn that you mean it. As they get older, they won't have to test everything the same as they did before, but they'll find new areas to test. They must learn for themselves what the rules of the world are (and remember, each lesson takes many repetitions).

A newborn learns its parents. They learn that when they cry, there is a response. They learn to depend on mom and dad.

A two year old tests their limits in their world with their parents. They are still learning the limits of their parents, but now they are testing how their parents react to their interaction with a world they can now explore.

A five year old tests reality against fantasy, and does so largely through their parent's reactions to their actions.

An 8 year old tests philosophical concepts of right and wrong. They struggle to define what right and wrong are, and how they apply to daily choices.

A 13 year old tests their parent's beliefs against themselves. They want to know what part of themselves is THEM, and what part is their parents or family. They will test to see if something bad really does happen if they do things so bad that it shocks their parents.

A 17-18 year old tests themselves against the world. They try to remove the influence of their parents from the decisions, to test their independence. They want to know whether or not what they were taught really holds against the whole world. For an intrepid child, it can look like they have gone into self-destruct mode.

The knowledge they gain has to be gained, and while theoretically they COULD get without disobeying, the reality is that they don't. The degree to which each child has to suffer some hard knocks varies with the personality, but every child is going to embarrass their parents, disobey in public, shock their parents by doing something they thought they never would, and go off on a tangent that is acutely painful for parent and child both.

It WILL happen. Your job as a parent is not to control it. It is to place appropriate limits as long as it takes to teach the lesson or to safeguard the life of a child who is too young to make the choice themselves, and then to allow them the courtesy of taking the natural consequences when they make poor choices later that they knew not to make.

They didn't do it because you were a bad parent. They did it because it really was their choice, not yours.

Control is only bad if used wrong. A loving parent places limits and exercises control on behalf of a child who is too young to control their own actions. But a wise parent never tries to control anything that is not realistic to control, or which is no longer appropriate for them to control.