According to the writer, the Timeout should be:
*****used sparingly, because the side effects of excessive punishment are more significant than any benefits the timeouts might have. If you're giving more than one or two per day for the same offense, that's too much.
*****brief, because the timeout's positive effect on behavior is almost all concentrated in its first minute or two. Some parents feel obliged to add more time to satisfy their sense of justice, but the extra time has no value in terms of changing behavior. If you feel that you must go beyond one or two minutes, treat 10 minutes as the extreme upper limit.
*****immediate, following as closely as possible upon the behavior that made it necessary. If you can, do it on the spot, not when you get home from the store or playground. Delayed timeouts are ineffective.
*****done in isolation from others, with the child in a separate room or sitting alone in a chair off to one side. Complete isolation is not needed if you feel it would be good to keep an eye on the child.
*****administered calmly, not in anger or as an act of vengeance, and without repeated warnings, which lose their effect if they are not regularly followed with consequences. Make clear to the child which behaviors lead to timeout, and then be consistent about declaring one when such behavior occurs. One warning is plenty.
2 comments:
There's an article in this month's Mothering magazine about what the author calls "time-in." She has two young children, and, rather than punish the aggressor in an argument with time out, she makes the kids sit down with her to work out the problem. I like it, but I'm not sure how to do it with just one kid--a two year old who can't quite identify his feelings verbally.
I see that flaw that any rational toddler ought to exploit:
"used sparingly:" all Sweet Toddler J has to do is wait-it-out. Once the timetable, er., benchmark, er., third time-out has been reached, the toddler will have won and discipline will be no more....
Post a Comment