Wyckoff / Unell

Discipline Without Shouting or Spanking

The book Discipline Without Shouting or Spanking was written by Jerry Wyckoff and Barbara Unell. The cover indicates that the book is designed to give parents Practical Solutions to the Most Common Preschool Behavior Problems. The book is targeted at parents of pre-school aged children.

I call Wyckoff and Unell the "screaming and hitting" doctors. Throughout their entire book, when references are made to a parent spanking their child, the parent is also described as "screaming." In many of the "case histories" given as examples in the book (all using "fictionalized" families) the parents are "screaming" at their child as they spank the child. This combination makes it appear as though parents who spank are always out of control.

The preface of the book explains that the authors understand that there are problems in raising all children and that both parents and children have "needs and wants." The preface states,

Our intent is to show parents how to react to discipline problems in calm, consistent, and effective ways - without shouting or spanking. We want to turn parents into "disciplined parents" who can control themselves when their children are least in control.

In order to manage adequately the problems of their child's behavior, parents themselves need to become more disciplined (where discipline is defined as a teaching-learning process that leads to orderliness and self-control). Parental behavior must change before a child's behavior will change, and parents must become "disciplined parents" before their children will become disciplined.

One of the disturbing practices of the non-spanking movement is the mixing in of enough common sense advice with the major objection over spanking as a form or discipline. This book advocates many procedures that I know from experience do work. For example, in the section titled How to Avoid Power Struggles With Your Children, the author writes,

Using a technique like Beat-the-Clock, when you want your children to get ready for bed faster, for example, will help you reduce parent-child conflict because you transfer the authority to a neutral figure, the kitchen timer.

I have no problem with a parent using tools to encourage their children to complete a task or to accomplish a goal. To the reader, this sounds like common sense. But the author has subtly stated his objective in this last paragraph, perhaps without being recognized by the reader. The author has encouraged the parent to "transfer the authority" of the parent in order to "reduce parent-child conflict." This is the underlying theme in all positive parenting books. The parent subjugates their authority over their child in order to reduce conflict with the child. We all would agree that if the parent allowed their child to do whatever they wanted to do and always did what the child wanted to do, there would never be any arguments. There would never be any reason for the child to be upset with the parent. But wait until the child goes out into the world. What happens when the teacher doesn't let him get his way? Will there be a problem when the teacher doesn't play the "kitchen timer" game? What happens when the policeman doesn't use the "kitchen timer" when the child is placed under arrest? I can picture the police officer setting the alarm on his wristwatch and playfully advising the young man "Okay, you have to be in the jail cell by the time my buzzer goes off!"

In this section, the author attacks spanking. The introduction of the book sets the tone for the following chapters. There are sections in the introduction titled Decide on specific behavior you would like to change, Tell your child exactly what you want him to do and show him how to do it, Praise you child for doing the behavior, and Try to avoid power struggles with your children. It is in the "power struggles" section that the kitchen timer is suggested. The next section is titled Spanking and Shouting Are Counterproductive. The author writes,

The principles outlined above represent what we, as parents should do when we're confronted with misbehavior. What we often do, however, is shout at or spank our children, especially if we're tired or distracted or frustrated by their failure to obey us. Shouting and spanking are quite natural responses to misbehavior - especially continued misbehavior - but they're also quite counterproductive.

Severe punishment often generates more problems than it solves. For one thing, shouting and spanking give children all the wrong kinds of attention, and if it's the only kind we give them, they may misbehave just to get us to notice them. Also, parents don't always know if spanking works because they don't actually observe its effect over time on a child's behavior. Punishment often simply drives bad behavior underground: it stops it from happening in front of parents, but it does not stop the behavior altogether. Children, in fact, become experts at not getting caught.

You will notice that the author very cleverly implies that shouting and spanking is a daily, if not hourly, occurrence. He states that this type of attention is "severe," and gives the child "all the wrong kinds of attention." Then he states that "if it's the only kind (of attention) we give them," implying that the child is growing up in an atmosphere of terror. I realized as I was reading this, my mind was conjuring up images of a poor lad who got no love or attention from his cold, ruthless, parents, only constant beatings which he encouraged by misbehaving constantly. This is exactly the type of image the NSA is trying to project. The spanking parent is unloving and cruel. When I thought about it, I realized that although my parents spanked me for misbehavior, they also showered me with love and affection when I acted properly. I encourage you to think about your childhood, and if your parents spanked you, if those memories are anywhere close to the concept being described by the author of this book.

There is another concept described in this last paragraph that is often addressed by the NSA. They contend that punishing a child for misbehavior only stops the misbehavior in front of the parents. Let's look at this from a common sense standpoint. Ask any schoolteacher if disciplined children are better behaved in the classroom than the children who are never punished by their parents for wrongdoing. Go ahead, take your own survey. You will find that this foolishness being spread by the NSA is just that, foolishness! If this theory was correct, then any other forms of motivation would also be subject to the same rule. Kids would only respond to any type of stimuli in front of their parents. The author attempts to explain his theory further.

But in the hierarchy of moral development (as defined by Lawrence Kohlberg), the lowest level is "following rules to avoid punishment." The highest level, however, is "to follow rules because they are right and good." When we consistently spank our children for their misbehavior, we tend to stop them at the lowest level of moral development - they are interested in avoiding the punishment, not in doing what is good or right.

I would ask this author, what makes him think that a child, or anyone for that matter, wants to follow the rules simply because they know it is the right thing to do? The overwhelming majority of non-spanking literature states that a child's major objective is to please his parents. They claim that the child WANTS to do right, and will always attempt to do right if encouraged by the parents.

Why, then, would this approach be any different than punishment? If a child is being good to impress his parents, then will he only be good "in front of parents?" If this theory works for spanking, then it also holds true for positive parenting techniques. The author goes on to say,

Spanking is also the model for the earliest experience a child has with violence. Children learn to behave in violent ways through our adult example. It is difficult to justify the admonition "Don't hit!" while our parents are hitting their children for hitting. Since children see the world in concrete terms, a child who sees that it is permissible for an adult to hit a child, will assume that it must then be permissible for a child to hit an adult or another child. Hitting begets hitting, as well as anger, revenge, and the breakdown of communication between parents and their children.

The concept that "hitting begets hitting" is one that is constantly proclaimed by the NSA. Yet, this theory has never been proven. In fact, the opposite is usually true. When I was a rookie with the police department, I responded to a call of a fifteen-year-old kid who just busted a ceramic lamp over his mother's head, hit his father with a fire poker, and threw a coffee table through the front picture window. On my way to the call, I was advised over the radio by the veteran officers that they had dealt with this young male on numerous occasions. When we arrived on the scene, the boy wrestled with five policemen before he was finally subdued in handcuffs. Being the junior man on the call, I was required to compile the information for the police report. 

As I talked with the mother, she explained to me how they had always experienced problems with their son obeying them. I asked her at what age she had noticed this defiance in her son, to which she replied "Oh, about two or three years old." I pursued the subject, and asked her what type of consequences they had imposed when their son defied their authority. She explained that they had tried "time outs," but they had never been very successful. They had attempted to make him sit in a chair, but he would just get up and walk away. I decided to ask her if she had ever spanked her son as a small child when he misbehaved. She became very angry as she replied "We don't believe in spanking. Violence begets violence!" I wondered if the woman realized how utterly ridiculous she sounded. Why in the world was her kid so violent? Because he was spanked as a small child? No. This kid had never been spanked. And he was one of the most violent children I had ever encountered.

Throughout the book Discipline Without Shouting or Spanking, the author gives examples of common problems experienced by parents during their children's pre-school years. There is a section devoted to the child who will not go to bed when told. The book labels these children as "active, energetic, preschoolers" who turn bedtime into "chase time" and "crying time." Again, the author gives some reasonable hints how to motivate the child into going to bed. But again, he slams corporal punishment. He writes,

Don't threaten or spank. Threatening or spanking your child to get him into bed can cause nightmares and fears, besides making you feel upset and guilty because the behavior persists. Use the timer as a neutral authority to determine when bedtime arrives to take the blame off you.

Parents should not fall for the rhetoric that encourages them to give up their power to a "neutral authority." The time for the parent to instill a fear of authority into their child is during the years when the child is most impressed. The very first time a child deliberately defies the authority of their parent is the time when "negative discipline" is appropriate. Allowing your child to believe that you have no authority is devastating for the parent when the child reaches puberty.

Notice how the author makes a statement here that is purported to be fact, when it is not. He states that when the parent spanks, it ends up "making you feel upset and guilty because the behavior persists." Although the author has previously stated that spanking stops bad behavior from "happening in front of parents," he now states that spanking does not stop the behavior at all. When the parent observes this, they feel "guilty." I have seen this method of deceit in numerous non-spanking publications claiming that spanking does not work, and parents who spank will feel guilty.

The method of discipline most desired by the author of this book is again, the time out. This author places enough importance on this technique that he has capitalized the letters in the two words throughout the book. This technique is not only a time out, it is a Time Out. The book reads,

Time Out. To remove a person from the likelihood of any social interaction for a set period of time. A typical Time Out for children could be to sit in a chair for a specified length of time or to be put in a room for the specified period. A rule of thumb is one minute of Time Out for each year of age. When disciplining the child in this way, tell him to go to the place you have chosen, then set the timer for the specified time. If he leaves his chair before the timer rings, reset the timer and tell him to stay in the chair until the timer rings. Repeat the process until he sits in the chair for the specified time. Research has shown that this method is an excellent alternative to more violent traditional ways of stopping such behavior, such as spanking.

Notice that this author also uses the phrase "research has shown." There is no indication on the page that this "research" is listed anywhere in the book or in the index. In fact, the reader must take the author's word that "research has shown" this technique to be more effective than spanking.

How does this author feel about a child who says no? The section on this subject is similar to other publications that advocate the parent "looking away." The author writes,

No ranks as the most-likely-to-be-used word by one- to three-year-olds because it's the most-likely-to-be-used word by their parents. To see what and who they can control, two- and three-year-olds throw a no right back whenever tossed a yes-no question. Limit the opportunities you give your child to say no (avoid asking yes-no questions) and don't always take her literally when she says no to every request. 
- Change your own no to something different. For example, say "stop" instead of no when your child does something you don't want her to, like touch the plants.
- Ignore your child's no. Take the positive side and assume she really means yes.
- Let your child say no. Even though she must still do what you want her to do or need her to do, your child is entitled to say no.
- Don't get angry. Getting angry will be interpreted as giving your child attention for saying no, and attention and power are just what she wants.

Can anyone tell me why a three-year-old child is "entitled" to say no? Here we have the perfect example of a child "left to themselves." Another suggestion given by the NSA is that a parent should not give ANY attention to a child who is misbehaving. My question is why not? If a child is looking for attention by acting in a negative manner, why not give the child some negative attention, like a spanking? It won't take long for the child to associate negative attention with negative behavior.  Like the speeding motorist who receives the traffic citation, it doesn't take much negative attention (speeding tickets) to cause a modification of the motorist's negative behavior (speeding). 

It is amusing to compare the different philosophy of the different members of the non-spanking movement. One "expert" will proclaim that "research has shown" a method to be most successful, while another "expert" will contend that "research has shown" a different method to be most successful. This is most evident in the area of temper tantrums. This author writes,

Millions of normal, lovable preschoolers throw temper tantrums as their violent, emotional way of coping with frustration or anger and telling the world they're the boss. Though you may want to give in or crawl under the nearest checkout counter when your child throws a tantrum in public, be patient until he's done and praise his gaining control after he's calm.

This is a technique I could never completely understand, in part because of the NSA's contention that a small child does not have the ability to reason. If a child is not punished for screaming and kicking, but praised when he stops, how is that child able to discern why he is being praised? And if the child is able to connect the praise with his stopping the tantrum, will that not encourage him to throw a tantrum in order to be praised for calming down? The author continues with his ideas of "what to do" when a tantrum takes place.

Ignore your child's tantrum. Do nothing for, with, or to your child during his performance. But how do you ignore a tornado tearing through you living room? Walk away from him during his tantrum, turn your back on him, put him in his room, or isolate yourself. Though it's tough to turn away, try to busy yourself in another room of the house or with another activity in public.

Don't reason or explain. Trying to reason or talk your child out of his tantrum during the tantrum is wasted breath. He doesn't care - he's in the middle of a show and he's the star! Any discussion now only encourages the tantrum because it gives him the audience he wants.

Praise your child. After the fire of a temper tantrum is just smoldering, immediately praise your child for gaining self-control and then get both of you into a favorite game or activity that is not frustrating for him or you. Say, "I'm glad you're feeling better now."

At least one other non-spanking "expert" suggests that the parent throw a tantrum themselves. Dr. Kenneth Kaye, in his book Family Rules, Raising Responsible Children Without Yelling or Nagging, states that "parents find it effective to throw themselves in the floor and feign an even bigger tantrum than the child's." Jerry Wyckoff thinks differently. He writes,

Don't throw a tantrum yourself. Say to yourself, "Why do I need to act crazy? I know that when I said no, I said it for a reason." Losing your cool will only encourage your child to keep the heat on.

It is apparent that the readers of Doctor Kay's book will eventually discover that throwing a tantrum along with the child makes things worse. Or is it the other way around? Perhaps the readers of Doctor Wyckoff's book will eventually discover that Doctor Kay was right. Perhaps neither of these "experts" know what they are talking about!

Wyckoff takes the same approach when kids talk back to their parents. In addition to advice like "Talk to your child as you want to be talked to," parents are given the following suggestions.

Ignore the backtalk. Try to pay as little attention to inoffensive backtalk as you can. Pretending the event didn't even occur takes away any possible power the backtalker has over you and makes it no fun to talk back because it's not a fun game to play alone. Let your child know what kind of talk you prefer him to use by pointing out when the backtalk is not occurring. Say "I like it when you don't shout at me when I ask you a question. That was so nice of you.

Don't use severe punishment for backtalk. Backtalk is, at worse, annoying. No evidence supports the belief that we make children respectful by punishing them for disrespect. Only fear is taught through punishment - not respect.

Here is another example of the phrase "no evidence supports the belief." However, Wyckoff does not offer any evidence that ignoring a child's disrespect teaches them respect. All we have is his theory and his "word."

In this book, the author gives a number of  what he terms "case histories that illustrate how a number of fictionalized families have used the strategies outlined in the book to handle real problems." The author refers to these little stories as "case histories" involving "fictionalized families." Here is one of those stories in the backtalk section. You decide if the story is fiction, the family is fiction, or both. It's called Pat's Backtalk.

Whenever Mrs. Loren would ask her four-year-old son, Pat, to do anything like clean up his toys or put the peanut butter in the cabinet, Pat would shout, "No! I don't like you; I'm not going to!" Pat became so experienced at backtalk and verbal abuse that whenever he was asked any kind of question, he would angrily shout back his answer, as if he had forgotten how to answer someone politely.

I'm going to interrupt this story for a moment. Can you imagine a four-year-old child acting in this manner? It's a wonder that other "experts" have not injected their opinion that Pat had Oppositional Defiance Disorder. If we keep on reading this story, we soon find out that dad is also out of control. The story continues.

"No child of mine is going to talk like that!" his father would shout back at his son, and his backtalk would get the family in an even greater uproar.

Why does dad, insisting that his four-year-old son not talk back to his parents, upset the rest of the household? In fact, the term used is "uproar." By continuing with this story, we soon find out that it was the parent's fault all along. It reads,

Once the Lorens realized that by being sarcastic and shouting back at their son they were modeling much of the behavior that Pat was picking up, they tried hard to react calmly to backtalk and to praise any pleasant response from him. It was not hard for them to start controlling their anger, because both Mr. and Mrs. Loren noticed Pat yelling less and less and when they did hear sassy talk again, they usually pretended they didn't hear the words.

The Lorens solved their problem by doing nothing. The author implies that Pat was misbehaving because the parents tried to admonish the child when he talked back. By ignoring the misbehavior, it stopped. This is the phoniest story I've ever read. Yet, thousands of parents reading the Wyckoff book will believe this foolishness and will not realize until it is too late that their child will not listen.

This book is loaded with stories of "fictionalized families" who have solved all of their problems with the techniques offered by the author. Many of these accounts have stories about how spanking just didn't work. Here's another fictionalized story given by the author about a fictionalized family.

Max and Helen Glass were shocked when they first heard their precious four-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Sarah, call her friends, "dummy," "jerk," and, worst of all, "dog poo poo." 

"Do not call people names, Sarah. That's not nice!" they would say every time their daughter used an offending word, but to no avail. In fact, Sarah soon began to even call her parents names, which caused them to spank her but didn't stop the name calling.

I guess what finally angered this fictionalized mom and dad was Sarah calling them names. Notice the very simple but unbelievable statement "which caused them to spank her but didn't stop the name calling." Reading on in the fictionalized story, we are made to believe that another form of discipline worked immediately.

"I'm sorry you called your cousin a 'dummy,'" she told her daughter. "Time out." After four minutes (one minute for every year of age) in the Time-Out chair, Sarah soon learned that her mother meant what she said. Sarah learned that it was better to get approval of her parents and friends. Her name-calling grew more infrequent.

Give me a break! Wyckoff is giving fictionalized accounts of a totally ridiculous nature! He is telling his readers that spending four minutes sitting in a chair is more effective than a stinging spanking on the buttocks. Here, Wyckoff says spanking doesn't work at all. In other portions of his book, he states "Punishment often simply drives bad behavior underground: it stops it from happening in front of parents."

Over and over again, Wyckoff gives fictionalized accounts of spanking failing as a disciplinary tool. In the chapter on Interrupting, it reads,

Whenever the phone rang, three year old Joanie Wilkins interrupted her mother's conversation. Mrs. Wilkins tried to explain calmly at each interruption, "Sweetheart, Mommy is on the phone. Please don't interrupt."

But Joanie would only interrupt again, so one day Mrs. Wilkins started screaming, "Don't interrupt me! You are a bad girl!" giving her daughter a swift swat on the bottom to "shut her up." No only did the swat not shut Joanie up, it angered her into crying and screaming so loudly that her mother could not continue her phone conversation.

First of all, this fictionalized scenario is doomed to fail from the start. Any parent reading this who has used spanking as a form of discipline recognizes that Mrs. Wilkins "screaming," along with swatting the girl on the bottom while still talking on the telephone would result in the end of mom's conversation. Here the author depicts a totally chaotic scene in order to convey the thought that spanking is chaotic and ineffective. In the section titled Getting into things, there is another fictionalized story that convinces the reader that spanking doesn't work.

"Curiosity killed the cat" was the line that Mrs. Stein remembered her mother saying to her when she'd climb up on off-limits counters as a toddler. Now she found her fifteen-month-old son, Sam, exploring forbidden lamps and plants; she knew he wasn't being intentionally bad - just behaving like a normal child. But Mrs. Stein didn't think her reactions to his curiosity seemed normal or showed much self-discipline.

"No! Do not touch!" she would shout, slapping her son's hands or spanking him whenever he got into things he knew were no-no's. 

Mrs. Stein realized that Sam had committed all the crimes by prowling around behind her back, learning to avoid all the costs for getting caught at being unlawfully curious.

The result of these spankings? The child committed the "crimes" anyway, but behind mom's back.

One of the best fictionalized stories in this book that demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the author's claims is located in the Destroying property section. This story is titled Tim the terror. It reads,

Walt and Becky Brady knew they had a "destructive" three-year-old child long before the preschool teacher called them in for a conference about Tim. They could bend Tim's teacher's ear with tales of his creations with purple crayon on the yellow daisy dining room wallpaper or the mosaics he made out of the pages of their hardcover books.

"When are you going to stop all this destruction, Tim?" Mr. Brady screamed, as he spanked his son and sent him to his room. The babysitter had just told him that Tim had drawn on the tile floor with crayon while his parents were at their conference. For the thousandth time, they had to repeat the punishment an hour later when Mr. Brady found that Tim had torn up three of his picture books while he was in his room.

They decided that they would have to make their misbehaving son pay the price for his destructive behavior. The next time they found Tim tearing a book's page, they didn't threaten or spank him. "Now you will have to fix this book, Tim," they stated, taking Tim by the hand to where the tape was kept and helping him tear off the appropriate amount and patch up the book.

Not only did Tim have to fix that book, but for three or four days after that, Tim washed the walls, scraped crayon off tiles, and taped back cards that were slightly damaged by a rip here or there - activities he never repeated once he paid for his misbehavior.

After several days of learning that he had to be just as responsible for his family's possessions as his parents were, Tim began to earn that importance placed on him. He beamed with pride when his parents praised him for caring for his books, records, and stuffed animals in a responsible way, and he dropped his head in shame when he slipped back into his old destructive habits.

There is no way that I can effectively express my opinion of this fictionalized story with the printed word. If I were lecturing in front of an audience, at this point I would pause and look out over the crowd, listening to the laughter. Although some of the techniques used by this Brady bunch are effective, the story as a whole lacks serious credibility. But we must remember, these are fictionalized stories concocted by the author to promote his theories.

First, we again have the parents "screaming" along with spanking. This is a common method used by the NSA to convey the thought that the spanking is an out-of-control action. Second, we are shown how the spanking failed as a disciplinary tool when the child repeats the offense shortly thereafter. For the "thousandth time" the child had to be spanked again.

There are other factors in this fairy tale that I am sure that the author did not consider when the story was concocted, perhaps because he feels that they are normal. Did you notice that the child, only three years old, is enrolled in a "preschool?" Where is mom when this child needs her most? Did you notice that the child was with a babysitter while mom and dad were at the preschool conference? Why didn't they take Tim with them? If this story WAS true, these parents are failing miserably. What we have here is another attempt by the NSA to convince the public that spanking is abusive and counterproductive.

Interested in another screaming, abusive, parent story? There is a section titled Taking Things. It includes more out-of-control parents named the Berkleys.

Sandy and Doug Berkley had never broken the law and gone to jail, and they didn't want their four-year-old son, Scott, to get locked up behind bars for doing so, either. But if he kept picking up gum, candy, toys, and any other object that caught his fancy when he and his parents were shopping, they wondered (half seriously) if he'd have a future outside of prison.

"Don't you know that stealing is wrong?" Mrs. Berkley would scream at her son when she'd catch him red-handed, slapping his hand and telling him he was a bad boy. She became afraid to do errands with her son, dreading the embarrassment she felt for the physical punishment she thought she had to dish out.

Notice how this fictionalized mother is portrayed as an out-of-control parent, screaming at her son while slapping his hand. This mother is burdened by "embarrassment" when she spanks her son, which is something she "thought she had to dish out." The implication is that the punishment was not needed, the mother has been brainwashed into believing it was. The whole problem is solved though, because the brilliant fictionalized parents come up with a brilliant fictionalized solution. They tell the child that they will purchase what he wants, and there will be no further need to steal it. It reads,

"Scott, you cannot take things that you do not pay for," Mrs. Berkley began. "You may ask me for a pack of gum, and if I say yes, you may pick up the package and hold it until we pay for it. Let's practice."

Scott was delighted to oblige because now when he asked for gum, as the rule stated, his mother and father complimented him for following the rules and paid for the gum.

Problem solved! But what happens to this fictionalized boy when fictionalized mom and dad are not around and he steals something when there is no one to pay for it? The solution is simple, according to the author. He writes,

Enforce Time Out. When your child takes something that doesn't belong to him, let him know that he must be isolated from people and activities because he broke the rule. Say, "I'm sorry that you took something that wasn't yours. Time out."

I don't know about you, but I am becoming burdened by this ridiculous notion that a time out miraculously changes a child's negative behavior. By reading this book by Wyckoff and Unell, you would think that placing your rebellious child in a time-out will solve every one of your defiance problems. It's wonderful for these authors that people are spending money on their book, but when the suggestions given by these "expert's fail, the small paperback book is not even big enough to use as a paddle to administer a spanking.

The author gives many examples in their "fictionalized" accounts of parents that scream while they spank. The purpose here is to convince their readers that parents who spank are out of control. Here are some examples.

"How many times do I have to tell you what to do?" his frustrated mother yelled at him after one of these less-than-responsive sessions. "You never listen to me! You never understand what I tell you!" she continued, giving him a swift spanking for not complying with her wishes.

"Stay here! Never run away when we are shopping!" Mrs. Brody screamed at her son the last time he disappeared under a lingerie rack at the department store.

Biting and teasing were two of Jason's favorite ways of letting his sister "have it" when he thought she was taking too much of his mother and father's time and attention away from him. Jason seemed to deliberately try to get yelled at and walloped - his punishments whenever he started hurting his sister.

"I'm going to give all your toys to poor children who will appreciate them," Mrs. Gold screamed one day, threatening and finally spanking Mark into tearfully giving up his toys.

Mrs. Brenner tried to ignore her daughter's noisemaking and gave in to her wants to get her to be quiet, but the sounds of her whining and whimpering started to grate on her nerves until one day she screamed, "Marsha! Stop that stupid whining. You sound horrible!" Since her own yelling and screaming only increased Marsha's, Mrs. Brenner knew that she would have to use another method to stop her daughter's whining. She decided to try a version of Time Out.

His parents, who were disgusted with their son's wasteful games, tried to stop him by screaming, "Don't play with your food!" each time Nick began his fun. Spanking didn't bring any results either - Nick continued to eat only a few bites and then started feeding his frankfurters and beans to the nearby plants.

The "fictionalized" examples given here all result in failure. The author attempts to convince their readers that spanking a child, usually accompanied by out-of-control screaming, produces negligible, if any, results. The solution to all misbehavior by the child is a time out. Most parents will discover when their child reaches the age of thirteen or fourteen that time-outs don't work. With an attitude of "no fear," the child will simply walk away. Then the parent wonders why the techniques they used from the Wyckoff and Unell book aren't working.

 

Family Defense Network of Ohio     Office Box 26348, Cleveland, Ohio 44126     (800) 555.9819     info@fdno.org

developed by the higher power team