I did interpret the word discipline as punishment. Thanks for the link to your discipline article .. interesting!
Thanks for letting me know that the note was not step 1, it wouldn't make any sense at all if it were. Even as far as the note being step 2 or 3, I wouldn't use it. My philosophy with punishment, which is what this note is, is that the punishment should be a fairly natural consequence of whatever behaviour we want to extinguish. Therefore, if saying poo is wrong because it is, say, annoying, then the consequence of annoying people is that they will not want to "play with you " any longer. So then the punishment might be to cancel some activities that the child likes with the parent because parents don't like to be around a kid who says poo all the time. When the child doesn't say poo, then the fun resumes. It's totally natural. If you annoy people, they won't want to be around you. On the other hand, it is extremely rare that having to write a note happens naturally when one says poo except when someone in authority forces it to happen. The note is not something that will lead to the right outcome, in my opinion, for that reason. If further punishment is needed, then I escalate quickly (not to beatings, just increasingly larger examples).
Just my opinion. Maybe I have special kids, but they all respond to this kind of teaching.
I agree with your last point about teaching to learn. There may be utility in the note for that purpose.
What I found funny about that picture was something else: I expect that the purpose of the "what I did wrong/what I should have done" exercise is to get the child thinking not only about what they did wrong (people, what's wrong with the word wrong??? some things are wrong!!!) but also about alternatives to their incorrect behavior, e.g. "what I did wrong=hit, what I should have done=say how I feel." So the "correct" way to fill it out would have been something like "what I did wrong=said poo, what I should have done=answer the question being asked". But he didn't do that! The second half is just the reverse of the first half!
Sorry. I thought that the desired outcome was to not have the child say poo. Having the child write a note whenever the teacher heard the child say poo would reduce the number of times the teacher heard the word poo from that child :)
My husband and I talked about this, no sense rehashing the same things in two different threads. We just wouldn't use this note as a strategy just because we think it's not naturally related to the offense. It just seems like an arbitrary punishment. If it seems that way to me, it probably seems more so to the child, although you mentioned that there was a back story that we weren't aware of.
I do understand your point from yesterday, that it might be useful as a contemplation tool. Anyway, lots of interesting opinions. Obviously a good post, generating much dialogue without even a single typed word in the body. A masterpiece.
I am making assumptions about the context based on what Julian does at home. I'm not sure if the teacher is always asking him a question when he says "poo" or if he is yelling it out in class or if he is going around to his friends' desks and saying "Poo!!" when they are supposed to be working. Or perhaps all of the above.
I didn't necessarily mean that specific response, just that I think in the right column he was expected to put a postive behavior that he could substitute for the negative one. Instead, he just put the absence of the negative behavior. I'm a teacher too and I am always amazed that no matter how clear I make an assigment, the students manage to follow instructions and yet end up with something completely different from what I had planned for them...
I am just wondering if you would find this as tiresome if the word was different. For example, for over 6 months now, when my 5 year old does not want to answer a question or does not want to do as she should (like wash hands after going to the toilet), she'll just say 'chocolate!'. As in: - "hands, please"... "argh, chocolate!", or "time to take your plate to the kitchen" - "chocolate!", or "would you like some broccoli" - "chocolate!". I find it tiresome, but mostly funny. And when I go along with it, she laughs and moves along to do her task, like saying 'oh washing hands with chocolate, that sounds messy, how do you take the chocolate out when you are clean?' or 'don't forget to eat the chocolate on your plate on your way to the kitchen, then' or 'chocolate covered broccoli sounds yummy, let's both have some'. But sometimes, this doesn't work either, she'll just pout and cross her arms, and I just shrug and try not to get annoyed, which only eggs her on. My conclusion form this is that she gets a kick out of my reaction, so my best bet for redirecting her behaviour is to take it in stride and not make a big fuss. We did go through the poo stage, but it seemed shorter, more about how the ketchup coming out looks like poo or this and that looks like poo. But, again we just moved along.
As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I find it baffling that people, adults I should specify, have such a problem with children saying benign, harmless words like poop, pee, etc. In the Asperger's world, words, sounds and noises are so stimulating and exciting that a ridiculous word such as "poop" could give someone hours of laughs. Although I do not believe that we should devalue the human body by using degrading words for the body or bodily functions, I don't see why adults are so uptight about everything children do that makes them laugh. Public school strives to extract the joy out of childhood. The drawing at the top of this story made me sad. The child clearly does not grasp why saying an annoying word like "poo" is a bad thing and can't figure out what to say instead. Is the child supposed to say "bowel movement", "feces" or "fecal waste"? Would that make the adult happier?
Situation matters. It isn't the word that's wrong, it's the venue. School isn't the place to be repeating 'poo' to the point that it becomes a distraction. I'm sure had the kid been saying 'feces' the same thing would have happened.
[...] Learning to Control Your Mouth Starts in Grade 1 – PhD in Parenting. A sweet, funny drawing and an interesting discussion in the comments about dealing with potty talk. [...]
School isn't a place for children, period. It is a prison- An institution that holds a group of human beings hostage against their will for committing no crime has no place in a democratic society. In unschooling families, children don't feel the need to be rebellious because their needs are met, their voices are heard and they are following their own passions and interests.
That's a rather broad & angry brush with which you're painting. Not all children are in school against their will. Not all schools are prison-like. Not all schools disallow voices to be heard, needs to be met, passions or interests to be followed. School can be a very positive, enriching, child-led experience. Just as, as I'm sure *some* unschooling environments can be.
Also, I've never met a child who hasn't attempted rebelliousness in one form or other. It's not a negative thing; it's part of our human nature.
I think that saying that schools are prisons is pretty heavy handed. It's like saying that all families who love their children unschool. Neither is appropriate 100% of the time. I think making statements like that really hurts your ability to make your point. Instead of reading or hearing what you're trying to say, most people will be reacting to the way in which you have said it.
SO CUTE!!! Save that for his wedding day toast! I have a first grader too. They are learning how to interact and manipulate (I use that word in the nicest way -- learning to manipulate their environment and influence others) very effectively. Which includes finding ways to make mom's skin crawl and using that as a form of Chinese water torture by doing it over and over until they find that limit. My daughter tests limits with words and tone of voice.. my one year old boy is testing limits with the electrical cords. They both make me tired. But its developmentally appropriate. My daughter knows very few "real" swear words, and doesn't use them, ever. Some folks asked why poo is so bad.. well I say how lucky that that's the bad word. Let "poo" be bad and forbidden. Let that be his powerful and naughty word. So when he's really mad or pushing it, he can say that in a crowded room and no one will look too horrified. My daughter can use "yeah but" and "why" in a similar way. I don't mind those words, if she's really wondering.. but she often uses them to start an argument or protest, not an actual discussion. And I had it coming. I did the same thing when I was her age.
I think it's easier to encourage the use of interjections that don't refer to bodily waste at all. Poo instead of shit is (in some times and places) a good alternative for grown ups. But poo is shit and so still potentially offensive per some authority figures. Schoolhouse Rock is probably on YouTube and could help this kid learn a dozen options that won't get him in trouble.
My ex-mother in law did not curse, but when she called something 'stinking' and scrunched her face up you just knew she was imagining the smell of shit. Her 'stinking' was so vehement that sometimes i thought an understated 'shit' with a calm face would have been LESS offensive.
I dont see any reason to think the teacher is out of bounds for excluding potty words unless needed to discuss potty issues. We don't know in what context the child said poo. Did he say someone or something was poo? The word itself is not offensive, but it could quite easily be aid in an offensive way, in a way the school aged child KNEW was offensive.
It may be amusing to hear your child(ren) using poo in whatever context. But if you were dealing with a room full of children easily distracted into giggles by certain words, year after year, you might get tired enough of it to rule against it and expect them to use a wider range of words for whatever purpose poo was used here.
Still discipline at school is often different than at home. I expect the other children had no problem playing with the boy who says poo, so the teacher implying they wouldn't would seem foolish. I think the assignment is a reasonable one for a school-aged child who needs help remembering what he's been repeatedly told.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Reader Comments (69)
I did interpret the word discipline as punishment. Thanks for the link to your discipline article .. interesting!
Thanks for letting me know that the note was not step 1, it wouldn't make any sense at all if it were. Even as far as the note being step 2 or 3, I wouldn't use it. My philosophy with punishment, which is what this note is, is that the punishment should be a fairly natural consequence of whatever behaviour we want to extinguish. Therefore, if saying poo is wrong because it is, say, annoying, then the consequence of annoying people is that they will not want to "play with you " any longer. So then the punishment might be to cancel some activities that the child likes with the parent because parents don't like to be around a kid who says poo all the time. When the child doesn't say poo, then the fun resumes. It's totally natural. If you annoy people, they won't want to be around you. On the other hand, it is extremely rare that having to write a note happens naturally when one says poo except when someone in authority forces it to happen. The note is not something that will lead to the right outcome, in my opinion, for that reason. If further punishment is needed, then I escalate quickly (not to beatings, just increasingly larger examples).
Just my opinion. Maybe I have special kids, but they all respond to this kind of teaching.
I agree with your last point about teaching to learn. There may be utility in the note for that purpose.
What I found funny about that picture was something else: I expect that the purpose of the "what I did wrong/what I should have done" exercise is to get the child thinking not only about what they did wrong (people, what's wrong with the word wrong??? some things are wrong!!!) but also about alternatives to their incorrect behavior, e.g. "what I did wrong=hit, what I should have done=say how I feel." So the "correct" way to fill it out would have been something like "what I did wrong=said poo, what I should have done=answer the question being asked". But he didn't do that! The second half is just the reverse of the first half!
Sorry. I thought that the desired outcome was to not have the child say poo. Having the child write a note whenever the teacher heard the child say poo would reduce the number of times the teacher heard the word poo from that child :)
My husband and I talked about this, no sense rehashing the same things in two different threads. We just wouldn't use this note as a strategy just because we think it's not naturally related to the offense. It just seems like an arbitrary punishment. If it seems that way to me, it probably seems more so to the child, although you mentioned that there was a back story that we weren't aware of.
I do understand your point from yesterday, that it might be useful as a contemplation tool. Anyway, lots of interesting opinions. Obviously a good post, generating much dialogue without even a single typed word in the body. A masterpiece.
I have to give Julian credit for that masterpiece. :)
Channa:
I am making assumptions about the context based on what Julian does at home. I'm not sure if the teacher is always asking him a question when he says "poo" or if he is yelling it out in class or if he is going around to his friends' desks and saying "Poo!!" when they are supposed to be working. Or perhaps all of the above.
I didn't necessarily mean that specific response, just that I think in the right column he was expected to put a postive behavior that he could substitute for the negative one. Instead, he just put the absence of the negative behavior. I'm a teacher too and I am always amazed that no matter how clear I make an assigment, the students manage to follow instructions and yet end up with something completely different from what I had planned for them...
I am just wondering if you would find this as tiresome if the word was different. For example, for over 6 months now, when my 5 year old does not want to answer a question or does not want to do as she should (like wash hands after going to the toilet), she'll just say 'chocolate!'. As in: - "hands, please"... "argh, chocolate!", or "time to take your plate to the kitchen" - "chocolate!", or "would you like some broccoli" - "chocolate!". I find it tiresome, but mostly funny. And when I go along with it, she laughs and moves along to do her task, like saying 'oh washing hands with chocolate, that sounds messy, how do you take the chocolate out when you are clean?' or 'don't forget to eat the chocolate on your plate on your way to the kitchen, then' or 'chocolate covered broccoli sounds yummy, let's both have some'. But sometimes, this doesn't work either, she'll just pout and cross her arms, and I just shrug and try not to get annoyed, which only eggs her on. My conclusion form this is that she gets a kick out of my reaction, so my best bet for redirecting her behaviour is to take it in stride and not make a big fuss. We did go through the poo stage, but it seemed shorter, more about how the ketchup coming out looks like poo or this and that looks like poo. But, again we just moved along.
As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I find it baffling that people, adults I should specify, have such a problem with children saying benign, harmless words like poop, pee, etc. In the Asperger's world, words, sounds and noises are so stimulating and exciting that a ridiculous word such as "poop" could give someone hours of laughs. Although I do not believe that we should devalue the human body by using degrading words for the body or bodily functions, I don't see why adults are so uptight about everything children do that makes them laugh. Public school strives to extract the joy out of childhood. The drawing at the top of this story made me sad. The child clearly does not grasp why saying an annoying word like "poo" is a bad thing and can't figure out what to say instead. Is the child supposed to say "bowel movement", "feces" or "fecal waste"? Would that make the adult happier?
Situation matters. It isn't the word that's wrong, it's the venue. School isn't the place to be repeating 'poo' to the point that it becomes a distraction. I'm sure had the kid been saying 'feces' the same thing would have happened.
[...] Learning to Control Your Mouth Starts in Grade 1 – PhD in Parenting. A sweet, funny drawing and an interesting discussion in the comments about dealing with potty talk. [...]
So. Awesome. Ha!
School isn't a place for children, period. It is a prison- An institution that holds a group of human beings hostage against their will for committing no crime has no place in a democratic society. In unschooling families, children don't feel the need to be rebellious because their needs are met, their voices are heard and they are following their own passions and interests.
That's a rather broad & angry brush with which you're painting. Not all children are in school against their will. Not all schools are prison-like. Not all schools disallow voices to be heard, needs to be met, passions or interests to be followed. School can be a very positive, enriching, child-led experience. Just as, as I'm sure *some* unschooling environments can be.
Also, I've never met a child who hasn't attempted rebelliousness in one form or other. It's not a negative thing; it's part of our human nature.
I think that saying that schools are prisons is pretty heavy handed. It's like saying that all families who love their children unschool. Neither is appropriate 100% of the time. I think making statements like that really hurts your ability to make your point. Instead of reading or hearing what you're trying to say, most people will be reacting to the way in which you have said it.
SO CUTE!!! Save that for his wedding day toast! I have a first grader too. They are learning how to interact and manipulate (I use that word in the nicest way -- learning to manipulate their environment and influence others) very effectively. Which includes finding ways to make mom's skin crawl and using that as a form of Chinese water torture by doing it over and over until they find that limit. My daughter tests limits with words and tone of voice.. my one year old boy is testing limits with the electrical cords. They both make me tired. But its developmentally appropriate. My daughter knows very few "real" swear words, and doesn't use them, ever. Some folks asked why poo is so bad.. well I say how lucky that that's the bad word. Let "poo" be bad and forbidden. Let that be his powerful and naughty word. So when he's really mad or pushing it, he can say that in a crowded room and no one will look too horrified. My daughter can use "yeah but" and "why" in a similar way. I don't mind those words, if she's really wondering.. but she often uses them to start an argument or protest, not an actual discussion. And I had it coming. I did the same thing when I was her age.
I think it's easier to encourage the use of interjections that don't refer to bodily waste at all. Poo instead of shit is (in some times and places) a good alternative for grown ups. But poo is shit and so still potentially offensive per some authority figures. Schoolhouse Rock is probably on YouTube and could help this kid learn a dozen options that won't get him in trouble.
My ex-mother in law did not curse, but when she called something 'stinking' and scrunched her face up you just knew she was imagining the smell of shit. Her 'stinking' was so vehement that sometimes i thought an understated 'shit' with a calm face would have been LESS offensive.
I dont see any reason to think the teacher is out of bounds for excluding potty words unless needed to discuss potty issues. We don't know in what context the child said poo. Did he say someone or something was poo? The word itself is not offensive, but it could quite easily be aid in an offensive way, in a way the school aged child KNEW was offensive.
It may be amusing to hear your child(ren) using poo in whatever context. But if you were dealing with a room full of children easily distracted into giggles by certain words, year after year, you might get tired enough of it to rule against it and expect them to use a wider range of words for whatever purpose poo was used here.
Teacher doing such needs to hear from you. Either your son is misinterpreting something, or she is a terrible teacher!
Still discipline at school is often different than at home. I expect the other children had no problem playing with the boy who says poo, so the teacher implying they wouldn't would seem foolish. I think the assignment is a reasonable one for a school-aged child who needs help remembering what he's been repeatedly told.