Partners in Parenting

Does Montessori Stifle Creativity?

2009-04-19T17:51:36-07:00

There are many misconceptions about Montessori. Some people think it’s a religion. Other people think it lacks structure, while still others think it’s too rigid. And those who think it too rigid often believe it stifles creativity.

This latter misconception brings up a very interesting question: How does one learn to be creative?

According to Sir Ken Robinson, the author of Out of Our Minds, Learning to Be Creative and the recently released The Element, there are three common misconceptions about creativity:
1) creativity is not learned, as ‘creative’ people are unique and set apart from the majority of people who are not creative, 2) creativity only occurs in specialized areas, such as the arts, and 3) creativity is about spontaneous free expression not involving any skill base.

Generally, people I encounter who think Montessori stifles a child’s creativity tend to have the third misconception of creativity.

Robinson explains in Out of Our Minds, however, that “creative achievement is related to control of the medium” and that medium can be anything from algebra to the piano. Additionally, even if you were to think of creativity in terms of the arts only, Robinson clarifies that “a good deal of what [artists] do is not creative at all in any strict sense. It involves a huge amount of practical routine, including refining the control of materials and techniques.” In other words, “Children and adults need the skills to be creative.”

When I was an art student at Otis College of Art and Design, one of the instructors would often say (when one of us complained about having to follow the parameters of an assignment rather being allowed to freely express ourselves as we wished), "To be a truly good and creative artist you have to learn the basics first." Then she would point to a series of drawings by Picasso. "In order to create a new form of art, Cubism, Picasso first had to learn and spend years practicing drawing and painting realistically. Only after that was he able to deconstruct his work and create something totally new." Art school, we soon learned, was NOT about free expression -- at least not until you had gained certain knowledge and skills.

A Montessori classroom is a prepared environment that provides children with fundamental knowledge and skills. Very young children learn how to control their pincer grasp so they can later hold a pencil properly and write words. They learn words and syntax so they can later write stories. They learn to mix colors, handle a paintbrush, and how to create a gesture drawing so they can later make something unique and beautiful. They learn to distinguish the pitch of musical notes and the symbols of those notes so they can later learn to write their own music. They learn the concepts behind mathematical operations so they can later build something using those operations. A Montessori classroom is a very special place where children learn skills, without pressure, so they can be creative.

Children have plenty of time for free expression at home or on the playground. But those few hours they get each day in a Montessori classroom are precious, as they provide knowledge and skills that enhance the child’s free expression.

"Help Me, Mama! Help, Help, Me Mama!"

2009-04-07T13:58:24-07:00

Here’s a question for you: How many times a day do you help your child?

For most parents, I would bet the answer would be “At least a 100 times day!”

But here’s another question: Are we really doing what’s best for our children when we provide help?

As parents, it’s important to teach our children how to ask for help. It’s far more productive for a child to say “Help me!” than to start screaming out of frustration. However, we need to be careful that we teach the true meaning of the word help. This means we need to discern when to help and not just rush to assist at every cry.

As a Director of a school, I see firsthand that a lot of children these days don’t know what “help” means. Children – especially those who are new to the school - ask me for help all the time without first attempting to do things themselves.

Let’s take little 3 ½ year-old Timmy for instance who earlier in the day had a lesson in how put on his own shoes:

“I need help,” claims Timmy as he sits there staring at his shoes and not even touching them.

“Remember,” I say, “first you pull out the tongue then you put your toes in.”

“But I need help!” He exclaims still keeping his hands as far away from his shoes as possible.

Obviously, little Timmy’s definition of the word help is “A grown-up does it for me.”

“Timmy, help means you try to do it first. Then, if you can’t do it I will be happy to assist you. But you try first.”

Timmy continued staring at his shoes muttering the word “help.” Finally, after a good twenty minutes (which, as the Director I can spend with one child, but a teacher in charge of 20 other children does not have the luxury of doing), Timmy realized he was not going to get any help without trying to do it himself first. So Timmy put on his shoes. All by himself. And he was so proud.

Now, as a parent, I know how painful it is to watch your child struggle with something you can do in flash like put on shoes or socks. I remember literally feeling pain in my body watching my daughter put on her socks for what seemed like half an hour. It was all I could do to keep my hands away from her feet. But now at the age of 4 she’s an absolute pro and has been for quite some time.

The point is sometimes we think we’re helping our children but what we’re actually doing is robbing them of learning how to do things for themselves. This does not help them when they are away from you such as when they’re at school. And it teaches them that the role of grown-ups is do things for them. Parents should be teachers for their children – not servants.

So next time your child asks for help, be sure you’re really helping and NOT enabling.

What does this say, anyway? Reading without Assumptions.

2007-03-27T14:38:12-07:00

Reuters reported yesterday on a study of the effects of poor daycare. The headline: "Few Effects of Poor Daycare Last Past Age 11". Now that's a bizarre headline for you - are we to be outraged or relieved?

Your response is likely to be based on your presuppositions and assumptions, your already-established opinion on daycare. Those who hold daycare in suspicion will be outraged: "The bad effects of poor daycare can last ten years!!" Those who have found daycare to be a positive thing might be able to salvage comfort: "See? Even a bad daycare doesn't ruin a child's life! A good daycare can be a great thing!" And of course, no one deliberately leaves their child in inferior daycare. But still... ick!

The article's summation isn't as fearsome. It states that there are in fact, very few negative effects of poor daycare; that hardly any of these last as long as age 10 or 11; and by that age the effects are very subtle. So, all in all, not so bad as the headline might give one to believe.

But, just because we can read the words, we can't assume we know what it's saying. When you hear "poor daycare", what does it mean to you? When you consider possible "negative effects" of daycare, what do you think of?

You know what you mean by those things. BUT: is that what the researchers meant? The thing is, you can't know until you read the article (and sometimes not even then) whether you mean the same thing by "good daycare" as the researchers. You don't know that their "negative effects" are the same as yours.

So, how did the study define these terms?

For the study, "Child care was defined as regularly scheduled care by anyone other than the child's mother, lasting at least 10 hours per week. Quality child care is complex to define but includes having trained caregivers and a low child-to-caregiver ratio." (Emphasis mine.)

I don't know what factors the reporter has left out. Training for caregivers is important, and child-to-caregiver ration is not insignificant... but... would you choose a caregiver or daycare centre on these two items alone? Are they even at the very top of your list?

I once worked in a daycare centre owned by two women. The staff-child ratio was slightly better than the legal requirements. The space was decent. Not wonderful, but clean, safe, well-lit and well-stocked with toys, and a small but pleasant outdoor play area. Both women who owned the centre had all the requisite education and at least 15 years experience. One was warm, friendly, quick to laugh and a good communicator. The other... Let me give you a picture of the other...

One day during afternoon snack time, a child was whining. It was the end of the child's first week in care, and her first full day at the centre. She had just woken from her nap and was sitting in circle waiting for her snack. She was still a little groggy, she was hungry, she was missing her mommy. And so, being about 15 months old, she was grizzling a bit. Not loud, but consistent. Give her another fifteen minutes to eat her snack and wake up a bit, and she'd have been fine, I'm sure.

That other daycare owner didn't want to give her those 15 minutes. She stormed across the room, and hunched over in front of the child so that she was nose-to-nose with her. I don't remember if she held the child by her upper arms or not, but I do remember what she said.

"Shut up!" She hissed in a voice dripping with venom. "Shut up! You are NOT worth the effort."

So. Good physical environment, good staff-child ratio, good training = good childcare?

I think, given that the place is safe, most parents would be more interested in knowing how often children are touched, hugged, kissed. How often a caregiver smiles, doles out praise. How discipline is accomplished. How conflicts are managed. Education is important, but character even more so. They can't teach patience and love at college.

And how about "effects of daycare"? The study lists things like scores on vocabulary tests (very slightly better in the fifth grade than children who received 'poor quality' care). There were no differences in math, reading or other skills. Test scores? And very subtle differences? I just can't imagine that minute differences in test scores are that important to the majority of parents.

Here's a finding that does warrant attention: "Children who were in child care were more likely to be aggressive and defiant in kindergarten." This is the sort of information that matters to parents. This is the sort of finding that warrants a closer look. What aspects of care were making this behaviour more likely? How can they be managed, controlled, reduced? Nor does it say whether this aggression continued past kindergarten. (Even then, please note, researchers said the all the effects were subtle. Dr. James Griffin, who oversaw the study, is quoted as saying "If you went into one of these classrooms, you wouldn't be able to say 'this child, this child, and this child attended center-based care'." The differences just aren't that great.)

Another comment - Dr. Griffin refers to "centre-based care". Does this mean it's equally applicable to in-home care, whether by a nanny, a neighbour, or a relative? Likely not, but we don't know for sure.

Bottom line: though the headline is provocative, and the content interesting, there are far more questions left unanswered than answered. It doesn't really tell us much, this article. So don't be using it to back up your assumptions!

But here's a fact that will encourage: the study found that attention from parents is far more important to how a child turns out than day care or schooling.

Are You Picking Your Battles or Just Surrendering?

2007-03-09T14:56:51-08:00

The other day I was working with a mother and son. During session, the boy took off his shoes so he could be more comfortable while playing on the floor. At the end of session, the mother asked him to put his shoes back on so they could leave. The five year-old refused.

Mom sighed and said, "Okay, let's go."

The boy opened the door and walked out towards the reception area in his socks. As the mother and I trailed behind, mom looked at me and began explaining, "He's always hated wearing his shoes. So, rather than fighting with him, I just carry extra socks. When he gets in the car, I'll just take off his dirty socks, put clean ones on and then put his shoes on for him. He's been doing this for so long, I've just learned to pick my battles."

Another mom recently told me how her two year-old daughter screamed bloody murder when mom refused to hand over a flower dress that was now too small for the girl. At that moment, mom was actually giving the dress and other clothes the girl had outgrown to a friend. When I asked mom what happened next, she said, "She was screaming so loudly about that damn dress, I just let her wear it to bed. You've just got to pick your battles, you know?"

I can see these moms' points. Engaging in battles with our kids is exhausting, and if we didn't pick them, then we'd be battling all day long. But these situations left me wondering: What does it really mean to "pick your battles"?

Let's look at Flower Dress Mom's situation. The child wanted the flower dress. In fact, she wanted to wear it to bed, which she did. And maybe the child's mother and her friend didn't really care whether the child kept the dress and wore it to bed or not. I mean, really, who cares? It's just a dress. The friend got a bag full of other clothes for her own kid. And it's certainly not going to harm the girl if she sleeps in a dress that's a wee bit too small. Hell, I don't care if my kids sleep in togas, so long as they sleep. So, why engage in a battle over such a non-issue? Instead, pick a more important battle in which to engage. Right?

But here's the thing: Did mom actually "pick the battle" or did she surrender?

If you look at the situation from a reinforcement perspective, mom waved that flower dress like a white flag and surrendered. If you remove all the distracting details and cut the situation down to the core, what you have is a child tantruming to get what she wants. And because she got what she wanted, she'll be sure to tantrum again because now she knows it works!

Child 1, Mom 0.

Now, let's take a look at Sock Mom. Kid refuses to wear shoes and walks around soiling his socks. Rather than fighting with him over it, she figured out an alternative: live with it, carry extra socks, and put his shoes on for him once in the car. I give mom credit for looking at an alternative solution. But, again, is this solution picking the battle, or is it surrendering?

Viewing the situation through a reinforcement lens, those bright white socks are looking much more like a bright white flag. Why should mom go to extra trouble to have clean socks on her at all times? Why not just let the kid walk around in soiled socks, which would be a natural consequence of his choice? Maybe over time the kid would begin to dislike the feeling of wearing soggy filthy socks. Then maybe he'd start wearing his shoes more often. (Or maybe he'd go barefoot and still refuse to wear his shoes! But even then, just tell the kid you can't take him anywhere: no socks, no shoes, NO SERVICE!)

To me, "picking your battles" means not enforcing arbitrary rules at any given moment in order to be right or show our kids we're in charge. I don't force my kid to wear the shirt I picked out for him when in the end it doesn't really matter what shirt he wears so long as he wears one. Instead, "picking your battles" means we're thoughtful in the rules we want to enforce and we're consistent in enforcing them. Thus, if the rule is "no tantruming," we don't ever give in to tantrums, no matter what the circumstances are. If we want our kid to learn to be responsible and wear his shoes when appropriate, then we let him actually learn it. We don't accommodate him or do it for him so he never has to learn.

In the end, however, I still feel dissatisfied with this definition of "pick your battles." I think part of my dissatisfaction is that thinking in terms of "battle" when dealing with our children only seems to reinforce the concept of power struggles. And whenever I've engaged in a power struggle with my kids, I have never, ever won. But that's a whole other post.

Building Self-Esteem Without Praise

2007-01-06T21:54:33-08:00

[Happy New Year from PiP! And many thanks to my dear friend and writing partner, Mary P., for keeping PiP afloat the last few months.]

Parents are eager to build their children's self-esteem, so many parents praise their children as often as possible. "Good job!" "Good listening!" "Good blinking!" Too much praise, even to a very young child, can become meaningless. Alternatively, it can become expected and sought out, leaving a child who doesn't receive praise for every little deed feeling insecure. Praise is important, but it shouldn't be overused. We want our children to have healthy self-images and not depend upon the judgments of others to give them confidence.

But how do help our children develop healthy self-esteem?

One way to do it is by spending a little time (30-60 minutes per week) playing with our children. I'm sure you're thinking, "Duh! Only a mean, heartless parent doesn't play with his/her kid!" So hear me out, because this is a little different than how we normally play with our kids.

Let your child choose whatever activity he or she wishes. (You don't need to play with her -- unless she wants you to.) As she plays, watch her -- attentively -- without telling her how to play with the object correctly or telling her that trees aren't purple. As you watch, describe some of what she is doing back to her without judgment (using a tone that conveys interest is essential!): "Oh, I see you're drawing a purple tree" or "you're building something tall with the red blocks." This may sound or even feel a bit silly, but this description lets the child know that you're really noticing her and accepting her and her choices.

Now, what I've just described may seem simple, or even obvious, but it's actually fairly difficult to do at first. So much of what we say is filled with judgment -- even if it's just conveyed in our tone and not our actual words. Plus, children work at a much different pace than we do. We can look at an object, know what needs to be done with it, and do it quickly because we have the developed motor skills. A child, on the other hand, may need to spend time attempting to put square pegs into round holes, or struggle with every little Lego for a good long minute before attaching it properly. Watching this as an adult can feel boring or even painful, and the urge to do it for them can become overwhelming. Ignore that urge. Give them the necessary time. And watch them. When they feel us watching them and accepting them, they internalize that feeling, which lays the foundation to healthy self-esteem.

These play-times also provide opportunities to reinforce certain desired behaviors. For instance, if you have a child with a very active temperament, you may want to reinforce concentration or carefulness. "I can see you're really taking your time putting one block on top of the other." Again, you're not judging her, or even praising her, but merely stating what you're observing, which can reinforce this desired behavior or at very least help her differentiate careful from careless behavior.

Praise is not wrong or bad. It's just overused. (I'll do a future post on praise because it's still important!) Observing and describing, however, is often underutilized. But such experiences are incredibly meaningful to children and help them develop a healthy sense of self.

Unexpected Brilliance

2006-12-12T16:26:23-08:00

It happens to parents all the time. You work and work and work with your child, encouraging, stimulating, teaching. You look forward to each new step - and then they spring something on you out of left field, something you had NO IDEA they were working on.

Take my eldest. When she was 17 months old, I was helping her with her burgeoning vocabulary. I was delighting in her efforts to jump. (Getting off the ground with two feet at the same time is no easy task!) She could identify 'red' and 'yellow', and we were working on 'blue'. She was learning all sorts of things, and I was with her, every step of the way.

I hadn't yet learned that I didn't control everything she learned. I would have agreed with that idea, had you said it to me at the time, but I didn't really understand the concept. I hadn't experienced it.

I hadn't experienced it, that is, until one quiet Sunday summer afternoon. Naptime. She was snoozing on a mat on her bedroom floor, the door closed. Mommy and daddy were in their room. Our door was closed, too. We were secure - a triple layer of safety: the nap, and two shut doors. Because our baby? She couldn't open doorknobs.

We were busily ... napping... when...

SMACK! A small hand landed with a decisive thwak on her father's shoulder, and a reproving voice cut the air.

"BAD daddy! OFF Mommy!!"

Guess what she learned, when I wasn't looking??

Managing December...How Do You Do It?

2006-12-03T16:23:11-08:00

Both Thanksgivings are out of the way, Hallowe'en is a thing of the past - next stop, Christmas.

Even if you don't celebrate the holiday, it's hard to avoid. Even for those of us who do celebrate the holiday, it can feel more like a lot of pressure than a holiday, more a celebration of ridiculous excess than anything to do with peace, love or faith.

How do you manage this month? Do you hunker down, batten down the hatches, try to stay under the radar? Do you throw yourself into the mayhem with relish? Do you savour the pleasures and filter out some of the craziness? Stories, styles, and craziness tips are all welcome.

Here's one of mine, which I only realized this very year is not how everyone does it!!

In our household, Santa only brings ONE present for each person. The other presents are gifts from real people. I thought this was just how it was done, until I suddenly found out (why did it take me so long?) that in many families, Santa brings all BUT one! Or all but a few. Or even ALL of them. Phew.

I now believe this was something my canny and practical mother devised for her own protection. A widow with three young children, she had very little money. If she encouraged us to believe in a magical Santa who could fulfill our every wish, think of the disappointment on Christmas day! Instead, ONE gift from Santa (and not the biggest one); the rest was from mummy, and grandparents.

For us, with Santa as kindly support staff to Christmas, rather than the Whole Deal, the expectations were realistic and the focus was on the generosity of family and the fun of giving. It worked for us!

How about you? Any stories to share? What is your holiday style? How does your family manage this month?

Juggling Mother Sets up Some Natural Consequences

2006-11-28T04:59:28-08:00

This True Grit story comes from Juggling Mother, mother to a son (Mstr A), and two small daughters:

When Mstr A (now six years old) was little he was looked after 2-3 days a week by his doting grandmother, and even more doting great grandmother. Despite the fact that I was totally neurotic and only fed him the freshest fruit, veg. and homemade food, by the time he was 6 months old, they happily fed him chocolate and Mcdonalds most days they had him. It didn’t matter how many times I asked them not to, they still did so.

When he was about 2, he was a very good communicator, with a large vocabulary, clear enunciation and a good understanding of what was being said to him. So one morning when they were coming over, I didn’t feed him breakfast. I knew they were going out shopping as soon as I left for work, so naturally within 15 minutes Mstr A complained he was hungry and was soon happily stuffing gummy bears and chocolate.

Within 30 minutes he was throwing up all over the shop, all over grandma and great grandma and all over their car. (*evil grin*)

It taught all three of them a lesson! Grandma and great grandma learned to moderate their treats and Mstr A still remembers the day “big nan made me sick with too many sweets”. He is very restrained with sweet stuff now and ALWAYS eats a proper meal first. Results!

Shame I can’t do the same for the girls – I don’t have the patsy any more.

Mary's Sleep Story, Part 2

2006-11-21T06:57:58-08:00

As promised:

With my first baby, I used gentle sleep 'training', and it worked like a charm. She was in bed with us for the first few months, I nursed her to sleep when she was tiny, then moved her to a crib, used 'shushing' and soothing, a gentle hand placed on the back, tip-toing out of the room. She followed all the sleep charts without a hitch, and never gave me more than a few moment's sleep-deprived frustration, and always with easily identifiable causes. (Teeth, illness, travel.) As I said in the first post, the perfect 'starter baby'.

My son seemed to be following much the same pattern for his first few months. A cheerful baby, he only cried when hungry, tired or in pain, and was easily soothed. By six months, he was sleeping 10 or more hours at night, and napping twice or so during the day. And then, at seven or so months, he regressed in a big, bad, ugly way. He woke once during the night, every night for a week. Then twice, then three times, until finally he was waking me every single hour. I tried all the things I'd used with both he and his sister. I nursed, I rocked, I shushed, I sang. I paid attention to his sleepy signals. Still. Every hour. He was not teething, he was not ill, nothing out of the ordinary was happening, and yet still with the hourly wakings, week after week. What had happened to my lovely little sleeper?

And let's not talk about what he was like during the day - cranky, prone to tears and rages, constantly fretful. Plus, he just looked awful: shadows under his big brown red-rimmed eyes, his skin pale, his motions jerky and frenetic. He was a Miserable Baby.

And me? I was a zombie. A walking, talking zombie. I Could.Not.Cope. With a tiny baby, there's a light at the end of the sleepless tunnel. With a six, seven, eight-month-old who'd previously slept well and now, for no apparent reason, was not -- there was no reason for this! How could I know when -- if it would ever end?

I couldn't cope with that. Not at all.

I was relating my woes to a friend, who pulled out a book. "Try this," she suggested. "I used it with my daughter and it saved our sanity." Everyone knows the book now, but back then, it hadn't been out long. It was new to me.

I took it home, read it through, and said to my husband, "We are trying this out." He was not supportive. This plan involved a crying baby. He didn't want to deal with that. Thus far, HIS sleep hadn't been disturbed. (He had to work, you see, whereas I was at home (doing nothing, presumably), so I did 100% of the night-time parenting. And yet still he tried to exert veto power over my attempts to solve the problem.)

No, we are not married any more.

So, anyway. Said to the then-husband, "We are doing this. We will do this for three weeks. If it doesn't work in three weeks, we'll stop, but for three weeks, we do this. By the book. No wimping out."

So, I was seriously sleep-deprived, a couple months' worth by now. I had an older child who also needed my care. I had an unsupportive spouse. I was All Set.

The book's method has the parent go in at gradually increasing intervals. Though you do not pick your child up, you can soothe and make him aware of your presence for 2 or 3 minutes. Then you leave. The idea being that the child knows he's not been abandoned, but that sleep is the only option.

First, though, we had to disassociate nursing from sleeping, so for the first five nights of the program, I nursed Adam whenever he cried, as I'd always done. Each night, though, the nursing time was decreased by one minute. First night, six minutes, second five and so forth. Baby was fine with all this. Clearly this was not about food for him. Seems a three-minute nurse every hour worked just fine for him. Too bad it didn't work at all for me!

When we got down to two minutes, the let-down had happened, but he didn't have enough time thereafter to ease the pressure. Ugh. THAT wasn't working for me, so that was his last night of night-time nursing.

That's when things got loud.

The next night, when he woke, I went in at five, then ten, then fifteen minute intervals. The first time, he cried for an hour. The second, for an hour and a half. The third, for two hours. This was NOT what I'd hoped to see. Each time I went in, he'd have pulled himself up on the side of his crib, and he'd be screaming. He'd calm a bit when he saw me, but when I left, the roars would escalate. He was OUTRAGED.

"WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING, WOMAN???"

So much for the soothing reassurance of my presence. This popping in and out, though good in theory - I liked the idea of letting the child know you were still around - was not working for Adam in practice. Not at all. In fact, judging from the fact that the crying bouts got longer throughout the night, it was making matters worse.

But what were my options? I could give up and -- and what? Go back to being woken every hour, as I had been for the past two or three months? No, I couldn't do that. Going in at intervals was not helping this boy. It was not helping me.

I stopped going in.

Yes, folks, we did total, hard-core, cold-turkey CIO. He was 8 or 9 months old and miserable. I was twenty-nine and desperate.

Night one: first waking - three hours; second waking - one hour; third waking - forty minutes
Night two: first waking - one hour, ten minutes; second - twenty minutes; third - eight minutes
Night three: first waking - ten minutes; second - five minutes
Night four: three minutes
Night five: no crying. NO CRYING.

Yes. In five nights, we went from hours and hours of crying to None.At.All. From the beginning of the program, ten days.

How did I feel during all that crying? Awful, of course. But I'd pledged three weeks to myself, and three weeks it was going to get. All mothers probably feel guilt at making their child so miserable, but THIS mother was also defiantly aware that he child had been making her miserable, too, and it had to stop. Such sleep-deprivation was unhealthy for everyone. He was miserable during the day, cranky and fretful with sleep-deprivation, I was barely functional and a poorer mother to both my children as a result. So, no, I didn't enjoy the crying, of course not, but I never considered not seeing through the course I'd set myself.

And look at the results: Ten days to ten hours. After that, he was a Sleeper. The occasional disruption, sure, but no more multi-night ordeals.

Every method doesn't work for all kids. We say that, but how many of us are willing to try the Other Method? This Gentle Sleep-Training mommy did, and I now know - they both work. They work, and they cause no harm.

The lessons I learned from this were: that in the great balance, my child's health is more important than my discomfort at hearing him cry; that the tears don't go on forever - it's a few rotten hours in a life of healthy sleeping!

Definitely worth it.

Squealing Tot

2006-11-17T09:21:23-08:00

Julie has a problem I'm sure a lot of you can relate to!

My 15-month-old son will squeal at such a pitch as to cause terrible pain in our eardrums. He will squeal when he is frustrated, not getting his own way, having to sit in one spot too long (eg. Out for dinner, or in the stroller shopping)…normal toddler issues. What can we do to stop this? Should we ignore it and cause the general public to also deal with ear pain? Or is it time to start some discipline with timeouts?

This is a tremendously common toddler behaviour, particuarly at this age, when language is generally so limited. It is a way to express their feelings, and it's generally hugely effective at getting what they want. For the toddler, it's a win-win. Not so much for the parents and any innocent bystanders!

What to do?

First, whenever possible, avoid the squealing by dealing with the situation before it gets to that point. (I'm quite sure you already do this, but I can't skip it and have everyone assuming I don't do this first, too!) Take the tot from the high chair as soon as he's done; leave the mall when he gets restless. Bring toys to distract and snacks to keep the blood sugar stable.

If squealing starts, speaking simply and firmly, identify the problem, and give the child a positive option. "Suzie! Too loud. You want down? Use your quiet voice. Quiet voice." When you say "quiet voice", say it quietly. Model a quiet voice. You may have to put your lips right to the child's ear in order to be heard over the racket she's making!

Sometimes, particularly when we're in public, I will point out some distraction in a whisper in the child's ear. ("Oh! Freddie! Look at that fire truck! See the fire truck? It has ladders and hoses. Maybe the firemen are going to a fire. Do you think the truck is going to a fire?") Often very effective, and a quick fix for public squealing.

As far as misbehaviour in public: At home you will have to put up with yowls of protest as you teach a new behaviour or raise your expectations of your child. However, I believe it is inconsiderate to inflict this on the surrounding public. If the child isn't calm in short order, I always leave. Don't worry: this doesn't mean that you're training your child to misbehave in public: the real training for good behaviour anywhere happens at home. Innocent bystanders do not need to spend 20 minutes caught in the crossfire of someone else's battle. (I'm aware that this is a multi-layered subject of a much longer post, but that's my working principle in these situations.)

Third, and the most important, a principle applicable to almost any behaviour you wish to eliminate: don't reward the behaviour! Whatever the child wants to achieve by the squealing, make sure it doesn't happen! For example, if she's squealing for attention, put your hands over your ears and walk away. Remove your attention.

(It is not necessary to say anything to the child. The most you need say is, "Oh! Too loud!" with an unhappy frown. Then leave, hands over ears. Body language will speak as well as words. You can prevent him/her following you by having a baby gate up. You can either step past the gate, leaving the child behind, or you may put the child on the other side of the gate. But do not be bathing the child in words and explanations as you do this - words and explanations, even scoldings, are attention.)

Another example, with a couple more options: Baby wants down from the high chair.

Be sensitive to whatever (non-squealing) cues she's giving you; use words to confirm her cues. "You want down? All right! I can get you down!"

If she squeals, offer an alternative to squealing. Words if she can speak, and/or signals if she can't. "You want down from the high chair? Say 'down, please'!" As you say 'down, please', you rap on the chair's tray with both hands. Take your baby's hands and smack them on the tray as you repeat "Down, please! Down, please!" This sort of thing can very quickly become a game.

A variation of the above is to add the remove-attention tactic. "I can't help you when you yell at me. No yelling. I'll help you when you're quiet." Then you very deliberately turn your back on your child. Wait fifteen seconds or so, then turn around and try with the alternate again. ("Say 'Down, please!''' and slap the tray with baby's hands.)

As baby gets the idea, raise the bar. It shouldn't be too long - two or three weeks - before baby understands what "No yelling. Quiet voice," means, and that it's more effective to rap on the tray than squeal. Not every time, but you'll see substantive progress.

And if you're discouraged by slow progress, be assured that this behaviour is generally 'just a phase', and that it will fade as their vocabulary improves. It's good to make the point now, though, lest you find yourself, in another few months, being screeched at -- in actual words!