Five Bites in Eleven Days: Function, Not Blame
Jonah is 28 months old. In the past 11 program days he has bitten five children, breaking skin twice. All five bites occurred between 10:10 and 10:25, during clean-up and the transition to the playground. Four involved 40-month-old Ellie, who repeatedly takes toys from him. During group time you have seen him yawn, rub his eyes, and lie on the floor. He arrives at 6:45 a.m.; nap is 12:30–2:30. Staff response has been to say “no biting,” separate him, and seat him in a chair for three minutes. One teacher told you that “biting him back would show him how it feels.” Ellie's mother has emailed demanding that Jonah be removed from the program. Your program is inclusive and does not expel children for behavior, and the director has asked you to draft the response and a behavior support plan.
1. What function is the biting most likely serving? Reason from the pattern and explain why the current consequence may be making it worse.
Read the worked answer
The pattern is the hypothesis. The bites are not random: a narrow 15-minute window, a demanding transition, a consistent antecedent (Ellie takes a toy), and a child showing clear fatigue signs after a 6:45 arrival. Predictable antecedent, predictable time, effective outcome - that triad points to an escape and communication function, not teething, not “aggression,” not a personality trait.
The current consequence likely reinforces it. Three minutes in a chair removes Jonah from clean-up and the transition. If escape is the function, that is a payoff, not a punishment; the behavior is being strengthened every time it works. “No biting” also teaches nothing, because a 28-month-old with limited words needs a replacement, not a prohibition.
The “targeting Ellie” reading is a trap. Four of five bites followed a toy being taken. Ellie is the reliable antecedent, not the enemy; a plan built around keeping them apart treats the trigger and abandons the teaching.
Broken skin twice raises the health risk and the urgency of supervision, but it does not change the function - resist the pull to escalate to punishment thinking because the outcome was severe.
Say out loud that the plan is a hypothesis: if bites continue after the antecedent and consequence change, revisit it.
2. Name three immediate changes to the routine and describe what you would actually say to Ellie's mother in your written reply.
Read the worked answer
Three changes, aimed at the antecedent and the consequence rather than the child:
- Restructure 10:10–10:25. A visual countdown, a real job for Jonah (carrying the bin), a one-to-one pre-correction before the transition (“hands to yourself - teeth are not for biting - say 'stop'”), and an adult within arm's reach for two weeks.
- Teach and reinforce a replacement. A “stop”/“my turn” sign or card, modeled and prompted in the moment and reinforced immediately, plus a safe chewing option if oral input is part of it.
- Change the consequence. No chair. Comfort the injured child first, keep Jonah in the routine, give a brief neutral correction, then coach the replacement. Also raise the 6:45 arrival and an earlier rest period with the family.
The reply to Ellie's mother: open by acknowledging that bites are frightening and that her child's safety is the program's job. State concretely what changes in that window - closer supervision, an adult assigned to the transition, separation during clean-up if needed, and a daily check-in with her. Say once, plainly and without defensiveness, that you cannot discuss another child, and that this does not mean nothing is happening. State the program's no-expulsion policy factually. Offer a follow-up date and a call. Then document the exchange and the plan you described.
3. A colleague says biting Jonah back would teach him it hurts. How do you respond, and what do you do next?
Read the worked answer
It is not a matter of opinion. Biting a child is physical punishment. It fails on every axis: it models the exact behavior you are trying to eliminate, it teaches no replacement skill, and it damages trust with a 28-month-old whose language is limited - the child least able to make sense of an adult's retaliation. It also exposes the teacher and the program to licensing action and a child abuse report. “He needs to know it hurts” misunderstands how empathy develops; it is built through co-regulation and naming feelings, not through experiencing adult revenge.
What to do: address it privately and promptly, name the policy, and do not debate it in front of other staff. State what happens instead - the replacement skill, the shadowing, the changed transition - so the conversation ends with a plan rather than a rebuke. Tell the director. This is not tattling: a staff member who has voiced an intent to use physical punishment is a supervision and liability issue. If it ever happens, protect the child first and report it through the incident process.
Keep the relationship intact. The instinct came from frustration and exhaustion, not cruelty. Give the colleague a concrete role in the plan - running the countdown, prompting the “stop” card - so she is invested in the strategy instead of feeling corrected.