I don't think the two options you present in your first point are mutually exclusive. Cleaning up the mess is not a "consequence", it is simply the expected behavior. Failing to clean up the mess is what results in the timeout. We frequently use "timeout until you clean up the mess". The consequence ends as soon as the appropriate behavior starts.
A timeout can also a good way to allow emotions to cool (on both sides) and facilitate a better discussion. Each of my kids tends to "lose it" in a different direction (anxiety, sadness/crying, anger), and it's definitely important to support them as they work on getting their emotions back under control. This is going to look different for every kid though. My daughter needs space, one of my sons needs physical contact, the other needs a lot of verbal reassurance. It's important to help them find the ways they can work through their "big feelings" in a healthy way.
Your last point is critical. My father had a lot of strengths as a parent, but one thing I _never_ saw him do was apologize (not to me, not to my siblings, not to my mother). It's one thing I have really focused on "doing better" (something my father frequently encouraged me to do)
The way you describe a timeout makes sense. There can only be a meaningful interaction among both parties when emotions are under control. I also tell my kid to take a minute off and calm down first if necessary.
There was a german parenting TV show a few years ago where the host repeatedly made children of various parents sit somewhere alone until they cooled off. This is the first thing I thought of when cooldown was mentioned. It's somehow easier to be consistent that way: Yelling, hitting, swearing, whatever. The child will know what will happen next and hopefully avoid it.
But cooldown alone stops making sense, when it is used for everything. I think it's better to respond with a consequential task which makes sense according to the cause. Even though it is harder to find and follow through sometimes.
I think there are two major categories of situations where a correction is needed. Times when an excepted behavior is not taking place ("Clean up that mess") and times when an unacceptable behavior has already taken place (Sibling A hit Sibling B).
In the first case, emotions may not be that high to start out with (and my never get that high). The timeout is a "self-inflicted" punishment that lasts until they do what's expected of them. There are certainly times when the "Do a thing!"/"No!" loop has spiraled out of control, and in that case the timeout first serves as a cooldown, then a conversation can take place laying out the expectations more clearly.
In the second case, tempers have generally already flared. There is generally an action that needs to take place in the short term ("Apologize to your brother"), and there generally needs to be some sort of punitive consequence. In that case the timeout a) gives tempers a chance to cool, and b) serves the same self-inflicted punishment as before ("You're going to be in timeout until you apologize to your brother"). The other (major) benefit is that it buys time for me to decide on an appropriate punishment outside the heat of the moment.
> There was a german parenting TV show a few years ago where the host repeatedly made children of various parents sit somewhere alone until they cooled off.
I'm not a huge fan of being "alone" as a punishment. For me the concept of "timeout" and "alone" are two separate things. There may indeed be times when being alone is what the kid needs to cool down before they can talk (my daughter is absolutely this way), but I think it's important for that to be their choice (and it's equally important for them know it (can be) an acceptable and healthy choice). For other kids (like both of my boys) being alone is just going to work them up more. I generally spend the first few minutes of a timeout sitting right next to them (or with them on my lap) until they have been able to calm down and we can have a conversation.
It's probably also important to note that we're all just talking about the "ideal" here. I'm sure none of us meet our own ideals as consistently as we'd like...
I've always been bothered by the "Apologize to your brother" idea.
In general, it is totally fake, and everybody knows this. I'd rather not encourage dishonesty. Granted, dishonesty may be a useful skill, but I think kids can figure it out without parental encouragement.
It establishes the expected behavior. You're absolutely right that it doesn't teach sincerity, but that's not the point. It builds the habit, and it forces acknowledgement that another party was harmed (even if they lack the empathy to care about that yet, empathy starts with awareness).
Sincerity is largely learned by example. It's important for parents to model sincere apologies when they screw up. To each other, to their kids, etc.
I agree with this sentiment but I think "apologizing even when you don't feel like you did anything wrong" is the kind of dishonesty that's absolutely necessary to get by in society and that you should definitely teach your kids.
It’s also about showing the sibling that was hit that you as a parent consider the behavior unacceptable. They need to feel that grownups react, even if they realize the apology is fake.
Absolutely not: it's essential, because all but psychopathic people learn how to do things for real by going through the actions. This is essential training.
> Cleaning up the mess is not a "consequence", it is simply the expected behavior.
If you are directing the behavior due to the child’s action (or it's effects), it's a cobsequence.
A common term for consequences that are nonpunitive but instead correct or mitigate undesired effects of the behavior is “natural consequences”, and there is quite a lot of parenting literature favoring them as generally preferable to other consequences, especially for young children.
You have a choice. You can clean up the mess now or in five minutes. If you clean it up now, I’ll start a timer and I will help for one full minute. If you wait five minutes, you have to clean it yourself.
It’s their mess and their responsibility but there is no reason I can’t help. And these types of choices very often work for us.
I'm realizing I'm apparently a fan of decoupling parenting...
In my case I'm happy to help if asked politely (and if it's not being abused). That's separate from the rest of the process though, and applies regardless of how we got to the cleaning up in the first place.
> My daughter needs space, one of my sons needs physical contact, the other needs a lot of verbal reassurance. It's important to help them find the ways they can work through their "big feelings" in a healthy way.
For the two kids that need 'coaching', what happens when you're not around? Will you at some point leave them alone to deal with things solo?
Yeah, for context, they just turned three (twins). I don't expect them to have perfected emotional coping skills at this point (though they're certainly both well on their way).
I'm sure every kid is different, but in the case of our daughter, her emotional maturity really seemed to develop around the time she turned four.
Yeah, stuff like this is bad. As a parent you need to stop this. Gets harder the older they are. But how?
A few steps:
- Control yourself emotionally. You're a role model for your child. Your child can't control their emotion and you can't change their emotion either. But you can control yours.
- Set a firm limit. "I won't let you hit anyone else".
- Stay calm. There is no way your child can calm down if you aren't.
- Connect to your child. There's a reason your child does the thing it does. Why? Figure it out! Be empathic. Acknowledge their need.
- Model them appropriate actions. Show them the best way how to handle a situation like this from now on.
I'm just reiterating things from the youtube channel in the top post. Stuff like this takes time. But it's also normal. Kids simply do not have all the strategies and emotional control to handle some situations appropriately like adults do.
But, be sure that you know. Control yourself. Be a model to them and show them, how it's done. Sooner or later they will (hopefully) adapt your strategy.
And that's why I'm against timeouts. They are not an appropriate response. Imagine getting a timeout of your boss when you get angry with a bug of your co-worker. That would not be an appropriate response either. Your boss would need to show you a strategy, how to handle conflicts now and in the future. Be the same to your kids.
The "timeout" is not a punishment in response to an action, it's a way to defuse the situation and facilitate the sorts of conversations you're describing.
A timeout can also a good way to allow emotions to cool (on both sides) and facilitate a better discussion. Each of my kids tends to "lose it" in a different direction (anxiety, sadness/crying, anger), and it's definitely important to support them as they work on getting their emotions back under control. This is going to look different for every kid though. My daughter needs space, one of my sons needs physical contact, the other needs a lot of verbal reassurance. It's important to help them find the ways they can work through their "big feelings" in a healthy way.
Your last point is critical. My father had a lot of strengths as a parent, but one thing I _never_ saw him do was apologize (not to me, not to my siblings, not to my mother). It's one thing I have really focused on "doing better" (something my father frequently encouraged me to do)