How rewards demean

I'm taking a short detour from my extended book report on Punished by Rewards to share the horror of a few rewards systems I've read about at NEA.org. Here's one that's sure to inspire morbid fascination:

From Sybil Rice (Sybsci@aol.com), an eighth grade science teacher at Texas Middle School in Texarkana, Texas:

"Our middle school developed a school wide reward program aimed at encouraging good behavior and taking the focus off of the negative. Students receive PRIDE points for good behavior in the classroom, on campus, and at school sponsored events. (PRIDE stands for Personal Responsibility In Daily Effort) Once each grading period, we hold grade level PRIDE assemblies where achievements are recognized and students can win prizes from drawings they entered by cashing in their PRIDE points. Once each semester, we hold a school wide assembly to honor good behavior and achievements. Last time, the grand prize drawing was for a motorized scooter! Our administration liked this idea so much they implemented a similar system for the staff! We can now earn PRIDE checks to be used for drawings toward things like manicures, massages, and a free day off!"

Wow, teachers earn "PRIDE checks" for good behavior, eh? And does the principal give them a pat on the head for getting to school on time? Seriously, how can this woman not feel demeaned by this? Suppose your spouse came home one night, starting praising you for keeping the kids clothed and fed all week, and handed you a gift certificate? And said that if you kept them fed and clothed next week there'd be another gift card in it for you?

As for the students, apparently the points are used to buy raffle tickets which give them merely a chance of being rewarded-- just to boost the level of unfairness, I suppose. I have serious doubts that these points are given out in a fair way in the first place, since they are apparently at the whim of teachers. Additionally, either some classrooms provide a better chance of winning prizes because the teacher gives out points more liberally, or there is a limit on points given within a classroom, in which case jealousy and strife can be expected to ensue between classmates. Meanwhile, kids are taught there is nothing in it for them if they behave responsibly, it's just behavior that someone pays you for, for their convenience. And by the way-- why be responsible outside of school, when there are no PRIDE points to be collected?

Worst of all, when a student acts responsibly, they appear to be doing it for PRIDE points, not of their own volition. The rewards system strips them of the actual pride of being responsible. It's like if your spouse paid you to be nice to the kids; would other people perceive you as being patient and understanding and kind, or as just wanting the money? Would you perceive yourself in exactly the same way, or would the ulterior motivation subtly erode your self-esteem? Would your kids still view your kindness as evidence of love and empathy? Would they model the same behavior although they were not being similarly paid, or would they feel entitled to an allowance? Why on earth would anyone ever introduce such a caustic system?

I'm picking the spouse example intentionally, because it demonstrates how an egalitarian relationship can be changed if someone begins to give out rewards. The principal at the school mentioned above must be quite a power-hungry bastard, to set himself up as the patriarchal bestower of gifts. Yet the teacher who wrote in was so thoughtless as to merely appreciate the manicures, so she obviously wouldn't see the harm this is doing to her students, either.

Another behaviorist scheme on the NEA suggestions board is more obviously demeaning and humiliating:

From Nancy Morrison, a third grade teacher at Elkhart Elementary School in Elkhart, Kansas:


"I adopted this system from my sister who is also a teacher and it works great! At the beginning of each 9 weeks, each child receives $25.00 in play money. Anytime they break a classroom or school rule, they are charged a fee. Breaking rules that COST them include such things as not returning homework, disrespect to the teacher or peers, abusing computer limits, etc.

"At the end of the 9 weeks, I have a celebration. I charge a fee such as $10.00 as a cover charge. Then I assign prices to the amenities like $2.00 for popcorn, $1.00 for pop, $4.00 to read a book to the class, $5.00 to be the teacher for 30 minutes and the kids just love this. They are not allowed to lend money to friends and I have truly seen a change in the behavior of my kids. Those that do not have enough money for the cover charge are the waiters and waitresses and believe me in the fact that they are so jealous of the others that they make sure they are NOT the servants at the next party."

Note that the punishments are subjectively determined: what constitutes "disrespect" toward peers? And how can the teacher possibly observe all interactions between students? This creates feelings of resentment and perceived (as well as actual) injustice. From Punished by Rewards (p. 56):

[A]ccording to a series of studies by psychologist Carole Ames, people tend to attribute the results of a contest, as contrasted with the results of noncompetitive striving, to factors beyond their control.... The result is a diminished sense of empowerment and less responsibility for their future performance.

Competition also breeds anxiety, which interferes with learning. Further, it decreases the likelihood that students can work together effectively. Kohn cites research that shows students learn better in small, well-structured groups than they do when working on their own. Collaboration improves learning, in spite of the way schools promote individualism. Of course, it's harder to dole out rewards and punishments when students can assist one another and work together, and it's harder to measure the performance of each student.

Working alone, working for rewards, working in competition with peers. If you believe Alfie Kohn, and personally I think it's hard to ignore his command of the literature, all of this is just totally wrong and antithetical to optimal learning.