What do you think?
Difficult Behavior in Early Childhood: Positive Discipline for PreK-3 Classrooms and Beyond
Increase your understanding of children to guide and shape behavior in positive ways!
The author assists teachers in observing and understanding children so that they can respond appropriately to difficult behaviors, and enable children to make good behavioral choices for themselves. In an engaging, conversational tone, the book
The author assists teachers in observing and understanding children so that they can respond appropriately to difficult behaviors, and enable children to make good behavioral choices for themselves. In an engaging, conversational tone, the book
- GenresNonfiction
176 pages, Paperback
First published June 29, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 2, 2020
Perfect book for teachers. Lots of useful ideas. Step by step instruction and a positive approach.
September 25, 2012
I like a lot of what this author says, but I think there is an obvious cultural bias.
In chapter 2, the author says: "Children's development sense of time is based on what is immediately relevant in their lives....David Elkind (1999) noted,
Recall memory requires a space-time framework that young children have yet to achieve. It is not until the age of 7 or 8 that children have a good sense of clock time. A true understanding of calendar time comes even later...in the same way, young children only acquire a sense of map and geographical space when they are in the later elementary grades. Without a space/time concept, there is no framework within which to order and store memories."
The author goes on to say, "It is hard to find motivation to repeat or avoid desirable consequences." He basically makes a big distinction: NOW and NOT NOW. Thus, consequences need to be immediate.
He goes on to say some obviously somewhat controversial statements that he recommends adults use with children:
"Name the negative behavior and assert the boundary: 'Ronnie, remember how mad Suzy was at you when you hit her? You're not being nice when you're mean to her. You won't be allowed to play with others if you keep hitting.' Follow with validation, acceptance, and connection expressed for positive behavior: 'You were such a NICE BOY when you helped her. I think you like to be a GOOD BOY who helps. You're a super helper.' (Emphasis mine)
Then, in a section immediately following, titled "Unconditional love, conditional acceptance":
"Some people may criticize the process just discussed if they believe it implies conditional approval or acceptance of the child only when there is 'good' behavior. Every child should feel love without conditions. However, the world is highly conditional in how it perceives children and people....if a child is obnoxious and disruptive in a public place, people do not accept that child...unconditional love should not be distorted to become unconditional acceptance of any behavior whatsoever. Love children unconditionally and THEIR BEHAVIOR CONDITIONALLY...Future negative consequences will punish a child's poor choices."
The criticism comes from the message a child may get that if they are good when they make good choices, and they are bad when they make bad choices, then their essential nature is one thing or the other. This can be confusing for a child. Am I bad b/c I did a bad thing? Their essential 'goodness' should not be negotiable, and I believe in unconditional positive regard, in part b/c of training I received influenced by Carl Rogers. Also, Brene Brown's work on shame illuminates the fact that people generally cannot change behavior from a place of low self-worth. Bad behavior, yes. Bad boy? No. I note the cultural point of reference that this author is coming from; many Asian cultures value conformity and social harmony, and may use forms of social pressure and shame to induce behavior. This may not genuinely change an individual, i.e. morphing a 'bad' boy into a 'good' one, but simply changes the external presentation. I also question the idea that we can unconditionally love and conditionally accept - it seems that love is acceptance, or is felt that way. Perhaps we can disagree with a behavior, but how that's expressed is the issue.
Yet I agree with the message, often missing from mainstream American parenting/teaching dialogue, that the community and society are NOT unconditionally accepting, and we must learn to realize our impact on others. Pointing out the feelings of others, saying it's not nice to do XYZ, and specifically talking about social consequences (Suzy won't play with you, you will be removed from the area, now allowed to play with others, etc...) is paramount to bringing awareness of how one can make choices for harmony.
His breakdown on timeout is wonderful.
"Theory 1: The Suffering Theory of Timeout" - That a child who sits alone, away from other children is suffering.Basically, this isn't effective, and can lead down a slippery slope to abuse (hence nose against the wall, holding heavy books, etc...) Children lack the cognitive sophistication to sit, reflect, realize it's less fun to sit in timeout than do whatever they did to get there, and will avoid that behavior in the future. Interesting reference here to a 1960 study by Douglas McGregory about human motivation (this study was done in the workplace) - basically a negative view that humans avoid work and must be coerced.
"Theory 2: Think about it - Also doesn't work, b/c the child isn't sitting there and reflecting about their behavior, they are thinking of how to get out of time out. They force an apology and go back to playing. "In the particular moment, Ralph is angry at Vanessa, and the consequences of his actions are not part of his consciousness. If he could really think about possibly getting in trouble with his parents, losing Vanessa as a play partner, developing a bad reputation among others, and so on, he probably wouldn't have behaved rudely in the first place." Excellent point! This leads me to the more important question: What IS the most effective way to get children to stop and think? If empathy develops gradually, how can we best give them tools to use themselves to self regulate?
In this section, the author goes on to say that adults need to model, verbally, out loud, the thinking process that should go on for children, in terms of showing a cause and effect. Yet he goes on to point out that this thinking process is not enough to change behavior.
"Theory 3: The 'How would you like it if...' - Young children don't have what might be considered mature empathy....young children may be so immersed in their own feelings and needs that they don't even consider the other person's feelings. Or they're afraid to allow for the other person's feelings, b/c that could mean their own feelings have to be discarded....The prompt to a child to feel what the other is feeling requires some more specific guidance:
'Does Vanessa like being hit? (And TELL HIM that Vanessa doesn't like it)
How does it feel to be hit?
How do you think Vanessa feels to be hit? (And TELL HIM that is feels terrible to Vanessa, just as it would feel terrible to him.)
Do you like things to be taken from you?
How do you think Vanessa likes having things taken away from her? (Again, TELL HIM, she feels the same way he would feel.)'
In chapter 4, the author describes the "Community Theory of Timeout That Works". It seems deceivingly simple. The teachers intervention, when 2 children have a problem, is to simply verbally direct them to 'take a timeout here and work it out between the 2 of you. You can't go play until you work it out." This presumes the children comply with verbal directions to 'go there and work it out'. Presumably, after another 5 minutes of arguing, the children work it out on their own and go play. What about the classrooms where children literally kick and scream? Of course this would be an extreme, but to expect simple compliance to a verbal instruction assumes a lot about the children, and that the teacher can simply be briefly interrupted from her other activity to give a one-sentence direction and then move on, without further need for assistance. Of course, I do like the simplicity of not getting too involved (or involved at all) - making a quick statement, and allowing the children to work it out.
Rules about not harming
- self
-others
-the process or functioning of the community or group (like interrupting the teacher's lesson)
"We can use timeout as a way to tell children that they have not behaved appropriately enough to be part of the community and therefor they are harming themselves. It may be startling for some children to hear that what they've done to another is in fact harming them...Children who are inattentive, disrespectful, and act in harmful ways toward others will experience negative consequences. Other children, teachers, and adults will not like them....A child that is allowed to act inappropriately receives the message that such behavior is acceptable, and that behavior will continue to the detriment of the child and everyone else."
Chapter 5: “Timeout in perspective: An appropriate criticism of timeout is that it does not work to change the child’s behavior; that is, it does not address the underlying cause or motivations of the negative behaviors….addressing the underlying issue involves a more complex process. However, while timeout doesn’t necessarily change a child’s behavior, it does curtail the detrimental effect of the bad behavior on others and on the functioning of the classroom community….focusing only on an individual child’s development and growth may be an oppression on the well being of others in the community process. Although the misbehaving child does not change behavior in the moment, the lesson… (is) that any child engaging in antisocial behavior will not be allowed to be free in the community.”
The author goes on to suggest that you talk w/ the child about what they can do differently. This addresses their need to be in the ‘now’ and do something immediate that creates a change.
Chapter 6: Boundaries – “As a teacher during summer school session, I and some other teachers did a team-teaching process…to nip this problem in the bud (a new group of kids every 50-min work period, rotating groups on different days, children testing boundaries), I lined up each class of children on the one day of the week they spent with me. Then I told them in the firmest and harshest tones exactly what I expected of them in terms of behavior. I told them exactly the things they were not supposed to do. I told them, specifically, the negative consequences if they did not behave. I also told them of the positive consequences of enjoying the classroom and activities I had set up if they did behave…..we never had a single discipline issue. Several of them let me know that the time they spent in my class was their favorite time of the week.”
This seems appropriate (and very effective) for elementary, but problematic for early childhood (ages 3-5). Perhaps some 5 and 6 year olds are capable of more abstract, rational thought and can understand these boundaries. But it doesn’t seem developmentally appropriate for most 3 year olds.
Chapter 7: Consistency – The author recommends the same response every time to any behavior outside of the boundaries. The adult MUST be absolutely consistent! Don’t let anything slide, treat all children the same.
Chapter 8: The author acknowledges that punishment is ineffective, often leads to intensification when children develop immunity to the initial punishment, and ultimately can destroy relationships of trust and a child’s spirit. He distinguishes between discipline & punishment, stating that discipline is a teaching approach rather than punitive.
Chapter 9: The author is in favor of praise, but he states that adults should ‘praise the person, not the behavior.” He refers to Alphie Kohn, and recommends:
“You drew a great picture” instead of “That is a great drawing”
“You did a good job” instead of “Very good job”
“Sharing your toy was very nice of you” rather than “Sharing your toy was very nice”
“You have a neat desk” rather than “I like a neat desk”
“You are such a great helper” vs “I appreciate your help”
Removing the pronoun “I”, and making the person the focus rather than the behavior.
Chapter 10: The author is in favor of praise and rewards. In this chapter he goes on to say that there must be consequences for poor choices. “Letting a child endure the natural consequences of poor choices is important to learning about the realities of the real world (the example he gives is not going on a field trip b/c of not meeting the expectations to earn that priviledge). This is not the same as creating artificial punitive and draconian experiences to make a child suffer….(b/c you will) lose credibility in the eyes of a child. Children who are harshly punished for minor mistakes don’t learn to eliminate the behavior as much as they learn that you or the world is unfair. A sense of injustice can lead to an escalation of bad behavior. Children need to experience reasonable negative consequences as a part of a learning experience managed by nurturing adults. If they do not learn, they may later suffer negative consequences that are far more unforgiving.”
In chapter 2, the author says: "Children's development sense of time is based on what is immediately relevant in their lives....David Elkind (1999) noted,
Recall memory requires a space-time framework that young children have yet to achieve. It is not until the age of 7 or 8 that children have a good sense of clock time. A true understanding of calendar time comes even later...in the same way, young children only acquire a sense of map and geographical space when they are in the later elementary grades. Without a space/time concept, there is no framework within which to order and store memories."
The author goes on to say, "It is hard to find motivation to repeat or avoid desirable consequences." He basically makes a big distinction: NOW and NOT NOW. Thus, consequences need to be immediate.
He goes on to say some obviously somewhat controversial statements that he recommends adults use with children:
"Name the negative behavior and assert the boundary: 'Ronnie, remember how mad Suzy was at you when you hit her? You're not being nice when you're mean to her. You won't be allowed to play with others if you keep hitting.' Follow with validation, acceptance, and connection expressed for positive behavior: 'You were such a NICE BOY when you helped her. I think you like to be a GOOD BOY who helps. You're a super helper.' (Emphasis mine)
Then, in a section immediately following, titled "Unconditional love, conditional acceptance":
"Some people may criticize the process just discussed if they believe it implies conditional approval or acceptance of the child only when there is 'good' behavior. Every child should feel love without conditions. However, the world is highly conditional in how it perceives children and people....if a child is obnoxious and disruptive in a public place, people do not accept that child...unconditional love should not be distorted to become unconditional acceptance of any behavior whatsoever. Love children unconditionally and THEIR BEHAVIOR CONDITIONALLY...Future negative consequences will punish a child's poor choices."
The criticism comes from the message a child may get that if they are good when they make good choices, and they are bad when they make bad choices, then their essential nature is one thing or the other. This can be confusing for a child. Am I bad b/c I did a bad thing? Their essential 'goodness' should not be negotiable, and I believe in unconditional positive regard, in part b/c of training I received influenced by Carl Rogers. Also, Brene Brown's work on shame illuminates the fact that people generally cannot change behavior from a place of low self-worth. Bad behavior, yes. Bad boy? No. I note the cultural point of reference that this author is coming from; many Asian cultures value conformity and social harmony, and may use forms of social pressure and shame to induce behavior. This may not genuinely change an individual, i.e. morphing a 'bad' boy into a 'good' one, but simply changes the external presentation. I also question the idea that we can unconditionally love and conditionally accept - it seems that love is acceptance, or is felt that way. Perhaps we can disagree with a behavior, but how that's expressed is the issue.
Yet I agree with the message, often missing from mainstream American parenting/teaching dialogue, that the community and society are NOT unconditionally accepting, and we must learn to realize our impact on others. Pointing out the feelings of others, saying it's not nice to do XYZ, and specifically talking about social consequences (Suzy won't play with you, you will be removed from the area, now allowed to play with others, etc...) is paramount to bringing awareness of how one can make choices for harmony.
His breakdown on timeout is wonderful.
"Theory 1: The Suffering Theory of Timeout" - That a child who sits alone, away from other children is suffering.Basically, this isn't effective, and can lead down a slippery slope to abuse (hence nose against the wall, holding heavy books, etc...) Children lack the cognitive sophistication to sit, reflect, realize it's less fun to sit in timeout than do whatever they did to get there, and will avoid that behavior in the future. Interesting reference here to a 1960 study by Douglas McGregory about human motivation (this study was done in the workplace) - basically a negative view that humans avoid work and must be coerced.
"Theory 2: Think about it - Also doesn't work, b/c the child isn't sitting there and reflecting about their behavior, they are thinking of how to get out of time out. They force an apology and go back to playing. "In the particular moment, Ralph is angry at Vanessa, and the consequences of his actions are not part of his consciousness. If he could really think about possibly getting in trouble with his parents, losing Vanessa as a play partner, developing a bad reputation among others, and so on, he probably wouldn't have behaved rudely in the first place." Excellent point! This leads me to the more important question: What IS the most effective way to get children to stop and think? If empathy develops gradually, how can we best give them tools to use themselves to self regulate?
In this section, the author goes on to say that adults need to model, verbally, out loud, the thinking process that should go on for children, in terms of showing a cause and effect. Yet he goes on to point out that this thinking process is not enough to change behavior.
"Theory 3: The 'How would you like it if...' - Young children don't have what might be considered mature empathy....young children may be so immersed in their own feelings and needs that they don't even consider the other person's feelings. Or they're afraid to allow for the other person's feelings, b/c that could mean their own feelings have to be discarded....The prompt to a child to feel what the other is feeling requires some more specific guidance:
'Does Vanessa like being hit? (And TELL HIM that Vanessa doesn't like it)
How does it feel to be hit?
How do you think Vanessa feels to be hit? (And TELL HIM that is feels terrible to Vanessa, just as it would feel terrible to him.)
Do you like things to be taken from you?
How do you think Vanessa likes having things taken away from her? (Again, TELL HIM, she feels the same way he would feel.)'
In chapter 4, the author describes the "Community Theory of Timeout That Works". It seems deceivingly simple. The teachers intervention, when 2 children have a problem, is to simply verbally direct them to 'take a timeout here and work it out between the 2 of you. You can't go play until you work it out." This presumes the children comply with verbal directions to 'go there and work it out'. Presumably, after another 5 minutes of arguing, the children work it out on their own and go play. What about the classrooms where children literally kick and scream? Of course this would be an extreme, but to expect simple compliance to a verbal instruction assumes a lot about the children, and that the teacher can simply be briefly interrupted from her other activity to give a one-sentence direction and then move on, without further need for assistance. Of course, I do like the simplicity of not getting too involved (or involved at all) - making a quick statement, and allowing the children to work it out.
Rules about not harming
- self
-others
-the process or functioning of the community or group (like interrupting the teacher's lesson)
"We can use timeout as a way to tell children that they have not behaved appropriately enough to be part of the community and therefor they are harming themselves. It may be startling for some children to hear that what they've done to another is in fact harming them...Children who are inattentive, disrespectful, and act in harmful ways toward others will experience negative consequences. Other children, teachers, and adults will not like them....A child that is allowed to act inappropriately receives the message that such behavior is acceptable, and that behavior will continue to the detriment of the child and everyone else."
Chapter 5: “Timeout in perspective: An appropriate criticism of timeout is that it does not work to change the child’s behavior; that is, it does not address the underlying cause or motivations of the negative behaviors….addressing the underlying issue involves a more complex process. However, while timeout doesn’t necessarily change a child’s behavior, it does curtail the detrimental effect of the bad behavior on others and on the functioning of the classroom community….focusing only on an individual child’s development and growth may be an oppression on the well being of others in the community process. Although the misbehaving child does not change behavior in the moment, the lesson… (is) that any child engaging in antisocial behavior will not be allowed to be free in the community.”
The author goes on to suggest that you talk w/ the child about what they can do differently. This addresses their need to be in the ‘now’ and do something immediate that creates a change.
Chapter 6: Boundaries – “As a teacher during summer school session, I and some other teachers did a team-teaching process…to nip this problem in the bud (a new group of kids every 50-min work period, rotating groups on different days, children testing boundaries), I lined up each class of children on the one day of the week they spent with me. Then I told them in the firmest and harshest tones exactly what I expected of them in terms of behavior. I told them exactly the things they were not supposed to do. I told them, specifically, the negative consequences if they did not behave. I also told them of the positive consequences of enjoying the classroom and activities I had set up if they did behave…..we never had a single discipline issue. Several of them let me know that the time they spent in my class was their favorite time of the week.”
This seems appropriate (and very effective) for elementary, but problematic for early childhood (ages 3-5). Perhaps some 5 and 6 year olds are capable of more abstract, rational thought and can understand these boundaries. But it doesn’t seem developmentally appropriate for most 3 year olds.
Chapter 7: Consistency – The author recommends the same response every time to any behavior outside of the boundaries. The adult MUST be absolutely consistent! Don’t let anything slide, treat all children the same.
Chapter 8: The author acknowledges that punishment is ineffective, often leads to intensification when children develop immunity to the initial punishment, and ultimately can destroy relationships of trust and a child’s spirit. He distinguishes between discipline & punishment, stating that discipline is a teaching approach rather than punitive.
Chapter 9: The author is in favor of praise, but he states that adults should ‘praise the person, not the behavior.” He refers to Alphie Kohn, and recommends:
“You drew a great picture” instead of “That is a great drawing”
“You did a good job” instead of “Very good job”
“Sharing your toy was very nice of you” rather than “Sharing your toy was very nice”
“You have a neat desk” rather than “I like a neat desk”
“You are such a great helper” vs “I appreciate your help”
Removing the pronoun “I”, and making the person the focus rather than the behavior.
Chapter 10: The author is in favor of praise and rewards. In this chapter he goes on to say that there must be consequences for poor choices. “Letting a child endure the natural consequences of poor choices is important to learning about the realities of the real world (the example he gives is not going on a field trip b/c of not meeting the expectations to earn that priviledge). This is not the same as creating artificial punitive and draconian experiences to make a child suffer….(b/c you will) lose credibility in the eyes of a child. Children who are harshly punished for minor mistakes don’t learn to eliminate the behavior as much as they learn that you or the world is unfair. A sense of injustice can lead to an escalation of bad behavior. Children need to experience reasonable negative consequences as a part of a learning experience managed by nurturing adults. If they do not learn, they may later suffer negative consequences that are far more unforgiving.”
July 3, 2015
One of my favorite books.
"Children's developmental sense of time is based on what is immediately relevant in their lives. What is happening now is relevant. What is not happening now might as well not be happening at all. David Elkind (1999) noted, '...recall memory requires a space-time framework that young children have yet to achieve. It is not until the age of seven or eight that children have a good sense of clock time. A true understanding of calendar time comes even later than that. In the same way, young children only acquire a sense of map and geographical space when they are in the later elementary grades. Without a space/time conception, there is no framework within which to order and store memories." (p3)
"Without a framework to order and store memories, it is difficult conceptually to remember past experiences, and anticipate later consequences. It is hard to find motivation to repeat or avoid desirable or undesirable behaviors and their consequences."
Thus, the point is, for very young children, CONSEQUENCES NOW. Not later.
Also, the popular early childhood trend of doing those tacky calendar's as a daily part of the large group circle is RIDICULOUS.
"Children's developmental sense of time is based on what is immediately relevant in their lives. What is happening now is relevant. What is not happening now might as well not be happening at all. David Elkind (1999) noted, '...recall memory requires a space-time framework that young children have yet to achieve. It is not until the age of seven or eight that children have a good sense of clock time. A true understanding of calendar time comes even later than that. In the same way, young children only acquire a sense of map and geographical space when they are in the later elementary grades. Without a space/time conception, there is no framework within which to order and store memories." (p3)
"Without a framework to order and store memories, it is difficult conceptually to remember past experiences, and anticipate later consequences. It is hard to find motivation to repeat or avoid desirable or undesirable behaviors and their consequences."
Thus, the point is, for very young children, CONSEQUENCES NOW. Not later.
Also, the popular early childhood trend of doing those tacky calendar's as a daily part of the large group circle is RIDICULOUS.
February 7, 2016
Possibly leading a book study on this for work. We'll see!
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews