Friday, October 7, 2011

52 Tool Cards: Break the Code

Positive discipline includes assigning positive intent to our children.  In other words, when they do something crazymaking, it is not because they actually want to drive us crazy, but because they are seeking to meet some need in an ineffective way.

Jane Nelsen created the Mistaken Goal Chart to help parents decipher some common kid behaviors.

Here's how to use it:
  1. Choose a behavior challenge.
  2. Identify the feelings you have and how you react.
  3. Identify the child's reaction when you tell him or her to stop.
  4. Use the chart o identify what belief may be behind your child's behavior.
  5. Try suggestions in the last column of the chart to encourage behavior change.

To be honest, this chart doesn't sit completely right with me.  I wonder if that's because of the age/stage we are at or because of my other parenting beliefs.    

For example, C is three years old.  Our bedtime and naptime routines still includes lots of cuddles and kisses and ups and downs.  Sometimes I get annoyed by that, which could be a signal that I'm giving her undue attention at those times and should be pushing her toward more independent sleep, where I just tuck her in, give a quick kiss and walk out the door.

On the other hand, in my opinion there is a lot about a three year old that is still a baby.  On the whole I enjoy the quiet and silly times together at bedtime and naptimes, and I think it is valuable time for keeping our relationship connected.  

So I'm not convinced that our bedtime routines actually represent undue attention. 

What do you think about the Mistaken Goal Chart?  

1 comment:

  1. Interesting! I'm not familiar with it, but I totally agree about 3 still being tiny. I can see how your feelings could be a signal that you need more uninterrupted time for yourself, etc, but I don't see it as a problem with the child, necessarily. Maybe there are other ways to meet both of your needs. I don't think I am quite making sense (it's 3:45 AM LOL) but her theory here seems slightly adversarial to me.


There was an error in this gadget