How to get a child to school without breaking the law - Barnados style

[Cross Posted from Halfdone]

It seems that kids just don't care about parental authority anymore. Funny...

Parents are telling truancy officers that they don't know how to make their children go to school because they can no longer smack them.

Manukau truancy officer Therese Luxton yesterday told a forum on next month's smacking referendum that there were not enough education programmes to teach parents alternative disciplinary techniques.

Well, let's see what they're offering... these are Barnados' 21 practical alternatives to smacking.

Remember that: alternatives to smacking oh, and they're practical.To me, that means they should deliver the same results for around about the same effort. Let's see if any are going to be as practical as the threat of pain to the seat of the pants.

• Taking a deep breath and gathering your thoughts


• Ok, so that's a good start... sort of. Of course that's what parents should do even if they use physical discipline. But it's not going to move a kid out the door who refuses to listen.
  
• showing them what they can do instead of what they can't


• Well, that's hardly better. By definition, you've already told them what they "can do" and they've refused.

• taking them outside for a run around

Worse and worse. So if you can't get them out the door to go to school, you're then as a practical alternative to take them outside for a run.

• saying lots of positive things when they are good


• Ah, so when they go to school, make a fuss about how good they are. I'm sure most good parents do tell their children how important school is, even the ones that smack. So again, no alternatives here.
  


• walking away, thinking about what you are going to do but keeping them within your sight


• In other words, follow them to the local park or hangout. Again, not something that's any use whatsoever in this instance. When are we doing to get to the actual alternatives rather than periphery mental preparation?
  


• thinking about whether they are tired or hungry


• They just got out of bed, and had breakfast. Thinking is wonderful, but at some stage, shouldn't there be some ideas to actually get the children to go to school?
  


• keeping your expectations and rules simple


• "Go to school". Simple enough?
  
• accepting mistakes and showing them how they can fix them


• Your mistake was not going to school. You can fix this by going to school.
  


• clapping once to get their attention, then giving a simple explanation


• "You're not at school, and you should be there."
  
  Yea, like that's going to work.
  
  
• explaining consequences


• Oh, something with a semblance of an idea. That's a first, but it's fair to assume that this isn't going to work in this instance. Especially since we're supposed to be working without the most immediate consequence - smacking.
  


• putting them in a quiet safe place so they can calm down


• Couch work for you? Another "idea" that completely misses the point of bad behaviour.
  


• getting down to their height to avoid being threatening


• Ditto. The entire point here is that parents no longer have legal rights, and children don't find them threatening - rather, the boot is on the other foot.
  


• putting precious things out of reach


• So many sarcastic responses come to mind on that one.
  


• singing some loud songs together


• !!!
  


• ringing a friend or a neighbour


• sharing stories with other parents


• Ok, now Barnados has reverted to mocking you. This can't possibly be taken as a serious list at this point.
  
• turning tasks into a game


• That's got about as much currency as the "run around the house idea".
  


• speaking softly


• being firm, fair and friendly


• ignoring tantrums


• Nothing useful there to correct a child's behaviour.
  


• acting as you want your child to act


• So there we have it. If all else fails (including gossiping with the neighbours) go to school for them.
  
  I think at this point, we can safely say that Barnados has no real ideas as to how to get your child to school. Of their 21 "practical suggestions" none are actually practical when facing a recalcitrant child who can't be reasoned with. In fact, the entire list dances around the actual issue.
  
  So by omission, Barnados is telling us there is no alternative to parents having rights of physical discipline when it comes to correcting behaviour.
  
  One is left wondering why an organisation so bereft of alternative ideas is so keen to get rid of one that works.

Alternatives to Smacking in a real life situation - FAIL

Yes Vote Misinformation FAIL!

The Yes Vote group have a list of FAQs on their website. In their FAQ, Why is the referendum worded so poorly?, they state that, "A significant objection was raised by the Ministry of Justice but this was ignored". However after making a request for information under the Official Information Act I have found that this statement is blatantly untrue.

1. The Ministry of Justice made four points (note, not objections) regarding the initial question submitted by Sheryl Savill - not the final version as the FAQ implies.
   
2. The Ministry of Justice's points were not ignored as the Yes Vote group allege. At the Ministry's suggestion, "within the context of positive parenting" was altered to "as part of good parental correction".
   

Click here to view the submission made by the Ministry of Justice.

Light Smack - FAIL

The Yes Vote team a desperate to tell us that A light smack is not a criminal offence.

Here they say, "You don’t need to worry about going to jail for lightly smacking your own child; no-one has been sent to jail for that."

What rubbish, can they please explain to me the new law. If I lightly smack my child for any reason, then I have committed assault.

Whos to say I won't go to jail?

Just because no-one has been sent to jail for that yet, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

And what if I dare give a light smack for the purpose of correction?

FAIL

Keep you Child Out of Traffic

Well, the "Yes Vote" site have a nice video on how to stop your child from running out onto the road in a "positive parenting" way.

Watch in particular the first few minutes of the second video, which describe a positive parenting approach to dealing with traffic — exactly the situation which Jimmy Mason was faced with in the recent “face-punching” trial.

Unfortunately the video doesn't deal at all with the situation Jimmy was in - he'd have needed a time machine. The video explained how Dr Joan Durrant trained her 3 year old to recognise the dangers of traffic. Mason's children had either not been trained or had forgotten that training.

I think it's lovely that her child was able to come to the recognition that traffic was dangerous. But it assumes that a child is both intelligent and that a parent has an hour to demonstrate to a child each and every danger they might come across in the world. They will eventually learn those dangers, but most parents find it much easier to have a young child to obey what they say without necessarily knowing why.

20/20 hindsight FAIL

Oh, and let's not concern ourselves as to why an adult has to spend an hour teaching this to a child, when they would never be allowed to take an adult out of their day to do the same.

Demonstrating children are the same as adults FAIL

Clenched Fist FAIL!

The Nelson Mail is reporting about the SAVE group which was started up a few months back by some teenagers in Nelson. The article features the following photo of two of the members...

Yeah well that's a good way to get an anti-violence message out isn't it... Youth-based anti-child abuse group YACA is supporting a NO vote on the referendum, however they are dead set against child abuse and unlikely to present themselves as youth waving their fists in your face.

Taxpayer Funding FAIL

this just in from Chuck Bird.

MASSIVE YES VOTE - FAIL ..... again

The Yes Vote campaign distributed this briefing sheet about the upcoming referendum on smacking.

Its like a tub of Hokey Pokey Ice cream, Full of great fails but every now and then there are some nice crunchy ones.

Lets just keep to the crunchy ones.

Fail # 1

The first fail is where the briefing document says that the word good before "parental correction" in the referendum is misleading as it makes smacking seem necessary to good parental correction.

However this is hypocritical as the law which they claim is 'working' says that parents can use reasonable force in tasks that are associated with "good care and parenting". Before they start slamming the referendum, they can first explain their great law to me.

The second hokey pokey I came accross was this one. The yes vote campaign is complaining that there has been no government led campaign to inform the public of the new law.

While that is partly true, I would first like to know where the Yes Vote campaign supporters get a lot of their money from? It was the government last time I looked.

Fail #3. Here they complain that people find it difficult to vote 'yes' in the referendum as it means they are incriminating good parents.

Whats wrong with the truth?

Hokey #4: The document lists a number of reasons why the previous law needed reforming.

Here they claim that firstly 'positive non-violent discipline works'. The free dictionary says that discipline is, "Punishment intended to correct or train." Even if it works, it is illegal. The new S59 says that all force for the purpose of correction is illegal.

Fail #5 : Here the yes vote claim that the new law puts children on the same legal basis as adults.

Before I swallow that Hokey Pokey , could you please explain why I can force my child to eat his/her greens, but I can't force my Dad?

Fail # 6 : The Yes vote folk next tell me some of the key findings of a survey which was conducted by UMR paid for by the childrens commission. (Yes the same polling company as the Labour party).

The results which they present try to paint the picture that we don't support the use of physical discipline. Well before I believe that one, I would like to see the questions they asked.

Hokey Pokey # 7 : Here we are presented with some statistics from young people. They were asked whether they had seen an adult hit or physically hurt a child in their home within the past 12 months.

Firstly a smack is not a hit. Secondly when you ask stupid things, you get stupid answers.

Fail #8 : The yes vote team finally bring to light the truth. They say regarding child deaths from abuse "child deaths represent the extreme end of the

child abuse spectrum, and usually involve complex factors like drug and alcohol abuse and

intergenerational violence"

Here I have to congratulate the yes vote team. Well done. Aren't these the factors of child abuse that we should be targeting? NOT good parents trying to raise good citizens.

Fail #9 : Here they try and say that physical punishment hurts everything that a child is. Its relationship with parents, its safety, security etc.

That is purely oppinion. Give me some evidence and I might try chewing that one.

Final Fail # 10 ! :Here we are presented with the summary of the document.

The first point is that the law is working well they say. I don't think you can get any further from the truth. The law was passed to stop child abuse. That has not happened. That should be the test of whether the law is working.

Secondly Parents are being prosecuted.

The law does not support positive parenting. It supports violent outbursts on your child.

The law does not increase a childs protection. It diminishes it.

The referendum is necessary as the politicians continue to ignore the public

A yes vote supports criminalising all good parents who choose to use a smack for the purpose of correction.