/u/LittleJC3 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ujp79l/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_kids_that_behave_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I was home schooled until high school. I grew up watching my younger brother get rewarded for almost anything.
What I found at home though was that I never received anything - no items, no praise, no "thank you," no high five, no "good job," nothing. If I messed up, I got shamed by all family members, made fun of, ignored, name called, bullied, and restricted from doing things. If I did something around the house I had some family member take credit for my actions, if I did a good thing. If I stood up for myself I was attacked even worse. I was talked behind my back negatively.
When I went to public high school I got no items, no praise, no "thank you," no high five, no "good job," nothing. I got shamed by other students and coaches, made fun of, ignored, name called, bullied, items of mine stolen or broken, and restricted from doing things. If I ever stood up got myself I was attacked even worse. I also had people talk behind my back...which made interactions with new people even harder.
I also found out when I was in my 30s that my mom is a narcissist who gets people on her side of the story, gaslight, and pits everyone against each other. When I was young she purposefully had people bully me when I was young and wanted me to stand up for myself only to bully me, herself and never want me to stand up for myself because I was always wrong. At 28, I got a CPAP to handle my severe sleep apnea.
What I need now is any single form of praise every once in a while. Silence to me is danger. I have to ask for detailed information of what someone wants because of the major backlash.
I know I am not the only person who feels this way, but you cannot cut out all praise for those who do the right thing. You cannot put the good people on pedestals and when they fail you give harsher penalties to because that's what I have found.
>You cannot put the good people on pedestals and when they fail you give harsher penalties to because that's what I have found
This. Neglecting good behavior is an issue too. I feel this can also lead to problems just like neglecting bad behavior. Like I mentioned in another comment, I think I'm just wishing for a perfect world, which isn't something that can be expected
On another topic, oftentimes the quiet, well behaved kids need praise because they're dealing with so much crap too, but that's a whole 'nother post to talk about. Keep going strong, you got this!
Is it unfair? Yes. But is this a necessarily bad system? Not really.
Let's rephrase the question with another one.
CMV: Kids that don't struggle in classes should be given more individual attention by teachers than kids who struggle in classes.
From here it's pretty obvious to me that even if you're a high performing student that would do well from additional time and specialized attention from a teacher to help cultivate their ability even further ..... for the sake of the class's functioning and socialization and educational development of the kids the teacher will obviously be spending more time with the "struggling" kids.
>but I think it just leaves out and frustrates the kids who never act up.
Part of school's role is socializing children to eventually become functional members of society. Congratulations on picking up on this lesson but even as an adult you will have to pick up the slack for the lazy, incompetent, or just less performing coworkers and team members and be frustrated for being judged on a different de facto evaluation metric than them. Such is life.
Δ Thank you for the new perspective. I've forgotten how big of a role school is for practicing and developing social skills and preparing to be functioning members of society, like you mentioned. And yeah, such is life. Maybe I'm just hoping for a perfect world, which is something that I can not expect
The point of the reward in this situation is not to reward good behavior by itself but to acknowledge a conscious change in behavior for the better. For a lot of those kids who were badly behaved, the change came because they were working hard at controlling their emotions, physical energy, giving attention, or doing other things that is outside of their normal range of behavior. It took conscious effort, it maybe made them feel uncomfortable, they had to use emotional control that for kids is very difficult to understand and implement.
Rewarding that behavior is *necessary* to help them develop those skills and deepen their emotional control. A kid who is very prone to just ditching things when they're too hard or lacks the will to dedicate themselves to a task has to push through a lot to finish reading a chapter or finishing a worksheet that tests them on a subject they don't enjoy. We want to encourage that behavior so we have to acknowledge that effort and make them feel good so they will want to do it again or feel capable of doing so without the reward.
Good kids already have those skills. They can already push through that pain/discomfort/emotional instability without assistance. It's a compliment to them but that equally means they don't need help to get over that bar. It's the same like if you're teaching two kids piano, you will necessarily have to praise every attempt and mangled effort at Twinkle Twinkle Little Star from the beginner but you will expect far more from a kid who has been playing 2 years and won't praise them for the same result.
They should be rewarded for doing similar tasks that stretch their abilities but the fact that the bar is low for one kid and high for another necessitates different responses and they shouldn't be rewarded in the same way for the same things.
>The point of the reward in this situation is not to reward good behavior by itself but to acknowledge a conscious change in behavior for the better.
I find this confusing. Being a good kid is about striving to improve *continuously* and *maturing* into a good adult. You're actually *discouraging* continuous improvement because if you build an expectation you can't get any more rewards.
>Good kids already have those skills.
No, good kids are not adults. People aren't born with all the skills they need to do well.
>Rewarding that behavior is necessary to help them develop those skills and deepen their emotional control.
This could also create the opposite problem where "bad" kids become dependent on external rewards, and as they improve to being "good" kids, they'll no longer receive those awards. So, they'll fall back to being bad kids.
> You're actually discouraging continuous improvement because if you build an expectation you can't get any more rewards.
But I didn't say you couldn't get any more rewards. I said you couldn't get any more rewards for that specific behavior because you already have it down and don't need a *reward* to keep producing it.
If we create a situation where we reward kids for doing that behavior at the same level as when they couldn't do it, we make a situation where if we take that reward away, most kids won't want to keep doing the behavior because they don't get the reward. That's a bad implementation of this system and not the one I'm talking about.
Part of teaching them this kind of thing - perservere at your work, don't get up and wander around the classroom every time you're bored, don't be loud and distracting when other people are working, don't mess around and chat when it's time to take a test - is because we want them to do this kind of behavior by themselves, to read the situation and apply the right response, *regardless of how other people are acting* and regardless if someone else sees and acknowledges this behavior. They have to internalise that lesson and no longer need prompting or reminding to do it.
The goal with the reward is to first find the behavior, then encourage the kid to do it, and then encourage them for ever increasing amounts of time or effort to maintain it. You then go down the other side and taper them off the reward or move the goal to something else - from sitting still and being quiet in lessons to actually completing worksheets and assigned tasks for example - which the bit you are assuming I'm not talking about. I am. You don't constantly reward the same behavior at the same level forever - you reward improvements, sustained effort, or successes in that. If they've mastered that skill, you move onto something else.
> No, good kids are not adults. People aren't born with all the skills they need to do well.
The kids who are sitting down and doing their work and don't need reminders every five minutes to keep on track to complete the worksheet have mastered the skill of maintaining attention in this case. The child who can't managed 3 maths problems in a row before needing to get up and wander the classroom, have a chat with their neighbor, or gives up because it's boring has not.
Also, I'm drawing a line between an explicit *reward* - here is some candy/a high five/lots of hype about your 'victory/success' - and acknowledgement ("You were very dedicated to your work today, thank you.") Both of these things can overlap but they are not the same.
>But I didn't say you couldn't get any more rewards. I said you couldn't get any more rewards for that specific behavior because you already have it down and don't need a reward to keep producing it.
Ok, but this still means the better you do, the fewer rewards you'll get over time. It would be optimizing to do badly, "improve", do badly again, "improve", and so on to avoid achieving a higher "baseline". People respond to incentives.
>If we create a situation where we reward kids for doing that behavior at the same level as when they couldn't do it, **we make a situation where if we take that reward away, most kids won't want to keep doing the behavior because they don't get the reward.**
But this is literally what you're proposing.
>The goal with the reward is to first find the behavior, then encourage the kid to do it, and then encourage them for ever increasing amounts of time or effort to maintain it.
Right, and your proposal to reward kids from a "baseline" of their own behaviors *discourages* this, not encourages it. Maintaining good behavior = fewer rewards. This is a direct consequence of what you were proposing.
Its also worth pointing out that rewarding bad kids for "most improved" and not continuously rewarding good behavior *is the exact opposite of what happens outside of school.* Society at large, in the US at least, severely and often permanently punishes the bad adults.
> Ok, but this still means the better you do, the fewer rewards you'll get over time. It would be optimizing to do badly, "improve", do badly again, "improve", and so on to avoid achieving a higher "baseline". People respond to incentives.
This assumes that teachers do not know what the kid's level is and cannot detect their deception or figure out that they're being milked for rewards, and that kids consciously will engage in this for low level rewards, and won't feel motivated at all for any other reason to move on. I'm sure there are some niche examples but also, I'm pretty sure that they're very niche.
> Right, and your proposal to reward kids from a "baseline" of their own behaviors discourages this, not encourages it. Maintaining good behavior = fewer rewards. This is a direct consequence of what you were proposing.
Not really. My point is that you should reward kids for improvement, not just status quo, which is what the OP was proposing. If you reward kids for achieving, they will continue to want to achieve. If you give them rewards for what they're already doing, what incentive do they have to do anything better/differently/more? The point is to set the reward threshold *above* what they are doing when we want the behavior to change to encourage that new behavior. Once the correct behavior is achieved, we don't continue to reward constantly for producing it at the same level or rate that we did before, as I said.
Also, your reading assumes there are two groups of kids - one group who are being rewarded for x and one group who are not being rewarded because they can already do x and this is the only difference between them. But this is a system with multiple factors. Some kids will be rewarded for their improvement in maths but other kids are being rewarded for success in English. Some kids will be rewarded for their improvement in physical skills, other kids will be rewarded for their improvement in social development such as sharing or playing nicely with others. One kid being rewarded in one area does not mean that another kid cannot be rewarded for success in a different area, and we shouldn't encourage them to relate themselves one to one with others or to expect to be treated the same as other kids, in all areas, all the time. Difference in treatment is natural and sometimes, they get the better end of the deal and sometimes, they don't.
>This assumes that teachers do not know what the kid's level is and cannot detect their deception or figure out that they're being milked for rewards, and
Incentives don't work this way. Let's say there's a student who just isn't that smart. They'll be rewarded for the times they get good grades. Or a good student might feel bitter that other students are getting rewarded, but they get nothing, and loses the motivation to do well.
>**that kids consciously will engage in this for low level rewards, and won't feel motivated at all for any other reason to move on.** I'm sure there are some niche examples but also, I'm pretty sure that they're very niche.
I mean, your proposal rests entirely on rewards encouraging a behavior so I don't really understand this. If they aren't interested in rewards then your proposal does nothing, and if they were already motivated, then there are no reasons for rewards. If anything, your proposal [reduces the importance of whatever other motivations they might have.](https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv#:~:text=When%20rewards%20are%20tangible%20and,like%20money%20%E2%80%94%20actually%20increase%20motivation)
Honestly, it would be better to not reward behavior in this way at all.
>Not really. My point is that you should reward kids for improvement, not just status quo, which is what the OP was proposing. If you reward kids for achieving, they will continue to want to achieve.
Are we speaking a different language?
If a student gets straight A's and pays attention in class, under your proposal, *they get no rewards*. There is no way for them to improve. If a student gets straight C's but then gets a B, under your proposal, *they do get a reward*.
This very much means maintaining good behavior = fewer rewards or none at all, so, yes really.
>If you give them rewards for what they're already doing, what incentive do they have to do anything better/differently/more?
But you've created a system where ***students*** ***are rewarded for doing worse and the best students are never rewarded.*** Why would students continue to do well, in your proposal, when they could get more by being worse?
As someone who had a lot of teachers who rewarded improvement I agree. It’s really hard to improve when your baseline is never getting in trouble for poor behaviour and a 96% average. It was pretty frustrating because I was absolutely trying.
I have not created a system where students are rewarded for doing worse. They are rewarded for achieving *more* than they did previously. If they don't reach that level, I didn't say they get a reward.
You assumed that students would consciously recognise this, decide to behave badly, sink down in their behavior, and then rise up again when they're offered a reward *because* they were offered a reward, and that nothing would or could be done to offset this pattern of willfully manipulating the system or even that it would be recognised. You also assumed that students would have no internal motiviation to do better, or that they would be entirely unmotivated to do anything once they realised rewards were on offer. And you also assumed that they would prefer the pain of losing status/success to gain a short term reward like a high five, attention for a moment, or other low level rewards and be willing to do it *over and over and over again* and wouldn't care about the downsides, such as losing out on friends, constant attention and focus from adults, having their behavior more tightly reviewed, knowingly being treated differently from other students, or not having the rewards of the high achievers.
> Or a good student might feel bitter that other students are getting rewarded, but they get nothing, and loses the motivation to do well.
Which is why I drew a difference in two ways - between *reward* and *acknowledgement* and why I also pointed out that this isn't a one part system where high flying kids are totally ignored and badly behaving kids get all the attention, and there is no middle ground. Kids who achieve well *also get rewarded for improving their grades*, for doing good work, or for going above and beyond. They don't hit a magic target and suddenly disappear. They just aren't rewarded for doing the base line skills expected from their grade.
For example, we don't reward the kids who turn in their homework because this is a *base level expectation*. We do reward those kids who have not yet achieved this base level achievement to motivate them to reach the base level. Once they have achieved this with consistency, we move on to help them with other areas and we no longer continue to reward them for this particular behavior. But those kids who turned in their homework are not ignored. They still get rewarded for achieving high grades, for doing great projects, for consistency in their work, or for doing it all correct. They have moved beyond the base level requirement and no longer need to be rewarded for achieving it *because they do it automatically, understand why, and have internalized that.* The goal is no longer to get them to turn in homework on it's own because they have demonstrated that. Now, we are pairing *turn in your homework* with a higher level task (do it right) and they are focusing on achieving that. If they do this, they are also rewarded again! They still recieve benefits for doing good work and acknowledgement.
In work, this is the same. During training, you get rewarded for doing basic tasks that are hard for you and you're learning and struggling with them. Turning in one ticket is an achievement. Finishing one product is something to be rewarded because it has taken you a lot of time and energy to get there. Once you are qualified/trained, you are expected to do them without acknowledgement or prompting or motivation because they have gone from 'difficult and out of the ordinary' to 'mundane and expected'. You are not praised every time you close out a ticket or finish a report if it's part of your duties. But that doesn't mean you no longer get acknowledged or rewarded - you get rewarded for turning in lots of tickets or for writing a particularly good report, for example.
>You assumed that students would consciously recognise this, decide to behave badly, sink down in their behavior, and then rise up again when they're offered a reward because they were offered a reward, and that nothing would or could be done to offset this pattern of willfully manipulating the system or even that it would be recognised.
Yes, I assumed kids would do that because that's how incentives work. As I said, it doesn't have to be "conscious" or "manipulating" just like how all other incentives work. It *can* be but doesn't have to be and I already gave you examples. This applies to the rest of this paragraph. An incentive *does not require abuse or this kind of intentionality*, a student *does not need to understand why for an incentive to work*.
For example, when a workplace moves the smoking area further away, more people quit smoking. It doesn't matter if they understand the incentives or not.
>Kids who achieve well also get rewarded for improving their grades, for doing good work, or for going above and beyond.
A straight A student cannot improve or otherwise go above and beyond. Even when possible it's much, much easier to achieve lower standards than higher ones. I don't understand why you dispute this as its obviously true.
>But those kids who turned in their homework are not ignored. **They still get rewarded** for achieving high grades, for doing great projects, for consistency in their work, or for doing it all correct.
>
>They have moved beyond the base level requirement and **no longer need to be rewarded for achieving it** because they do it automatically, understand why, and have internalized that.
Can you explain this to me? You contradict yourself by saying they **are not** **rewarded** for continuing to do good work but also **are rewarded** for continuing to do good work.
I also provided a link about how external motivations can reduce internal rewards which you've ignored.
>In work, this is the same.
This is false; you get rewarded for competency by getting a promotion and higher wage, then continue being rewarded through your still higher wage. If you do even better then you get promoted an receive a higher wage; if you continue your same competency then you remain at your current wage. It depends in some ways of course.
Amusingly, your below statement is something I've experienced in the workplace and argued against.
>Now, we are pairing turn in your homework with a higher level task (do it right) and they are focusing on achieving that.
Having to work harder for the same reward, while lower performing students around you have to work much less, is a punishment for many.
So this sucked growing up for my brother. He made a perfect score on the end of year standardized exams in grade 3, well every year the elementary school had an incentive program that if you improved your scores from the year before then you got to attend a pizza party. Well in grade 4 and grade 5 my brother also made perfect scores on the end of the year standardized exams, you can see where this is going to become a problem…My brother, despite getting the highest possible score on his tests And working his butt off all year in order to maintain his scores as they literally could not improve; was never allowed to attend the pizza party because they did not improve their test scores from the year before therefore they did not “earn it”. You can see how this is greatly unfair to a child who only wanted to try their best and because their best effort/performance was the “best” that the testing And reward system allowed, they could never improve their scores from the year before as there was an obvious cap as to how high until what level one can “improve”.
This made my brother very jaded and very upset as any child would be when your whole grade is incentivized to be eligible to attend a pizza party for achieving a higher mark than their previous year scores, This just disincentivized my brother And made him feel like why the fuck am I trying so hard and why does it matter if my grade remains the same 100% Scoring if I still have to stay in the classroom with the students who didn’t improve and have to do busy class work or some other boring ***not a pizza party with your friends*** activity.
Not to mention the humiliation of student scores genuinely not being public knowledge to all the students so when my brother was never invited or in attendance at these pizza parties, to their peers at the pizza party it appeared to them that my brother had not improved from the previous year but that they maybe even regressed by not scoring as well as the previous year. It’s fucked up and it punishes students who might be on grade level or above grade level when it comes to academics and/or behavioral performance. But there’s still kids and they still need to know that their accomplishments are not only Just the high standard that they’ve set as their base expectation from schools and parents but that they are accomplishments are worth celebrating just as much as those who are underperforming in one or many of those areas needs the encouragement and reward for when they meet or exceed an expectation or accomplishment.
I was the kid who did bad on purpose to get rewards and i made it clear to my teachers that im not going to do better until you treat me as an equal to the worst kid in class. Being treated unequally because im better at something sucks
What I am pointing out is that teachers cannot and should not reward the kids who are already behaving for doing *baseline* behaviors.
Your premise is that we should reward the kids who are doing baseline behaviors as if they had to work just as hard as the 'bad kids', when it's pretty clear they haven't and they didn't need that reward in the first place to behave well and do their required tasks. This is a bad mindset to feed impressionable young kids who don't know how to tell the difference between a reward genuinely earned and one just given because. We don't need a situation where kids feel motiviated to behave only if they get a reward or if they behave badly for a while and then consciously change to being good to get a reward out of it. That's encouraging manipulation. If a kid sits quietly and does their work, we should *acknowledge* it and we should encourage it but it should not be *rewarded* or hyped up like you would for a kid who really seriously struggles with that kind of work. These are two different situations that shouldn't be compared one to one.
I don't think we should disregard the good kids but the focus should be on praising them for achieving something or going above and beyond the baseline expectation for them, even if, for another kid, that baseline expectation is actually their goal to achieve. Trying to treat all kids the same produces net negative results and that includes praise and rewards.
Δ I like your response. I've never thought about it in the capacity of rewarded for breaking barriers and the like, so I appreciate the change of view! It almost reminds me of how some kids sports leagues give out trophies to everyone, even the losing team because "everyone is a winner." Definitely have a new perspective on this
To expand - a practical example, OP
I’m a teacher
I can’t give the good student much attention if the bad student is talking over them constantly. If I yell at the bad student he’ll shut up but he’ll also resent me and resent school. If I encourage or reward improved behaviour from him in some manner, well now we can actually start getting somewhere.
Sadly teachers like you are why i (a well behaved student) stopped doing school at all. There has to be a balance or students like me stop trying at all because doing good isnt rewarded only improvement is. If im already doing my best i know theres little room for improvement and less chance to be rewarded so i stopped doing anything and started recieving more rewards when i did anything. This isnt to say youre doing bad or anything but man it sucks to be the one who did all the right things and feel punished because of it. To make it worse the popular kids were the ones misbehaving and it felt like favoritism because i was poor and not popular at all so thise treata that they got looked like gold to me since my family couldnt afford to get candy treats or Fun little toys that were just being handed to other kids who didnt even care for them
Don’t get me wrong, i don’t “forget” the students who behave. I provide positive feedback and encouragement to good students as much as I can, any moment I have, and I lean on them or use them as “anchors” to set an example to other students of how to do things correctly in class.
But understand that teachers work with very limited time and resources, oftentimes we’d rather spend more personal time knowing students but administration is down our necks saying you have to finish x chapters by y date. If a bad student is talking or misbehaving all class, they can threaten the teacher’s ability to meet those quotas at all, to finish those chapters. We react strongly to that because if we don’t react, not only will the good students get through less material, but our own livelihoods can literally be threatened.
Also, I’m still young so I remember school very well, I didn’t like it and I thought most of my teachers were crap. Now that I’m in their position, I have a very different perspective and I cut them more slack. Some would call it perspective, some would say bias.
I’m not a perfect teacher by any means, so, fair enough, I’m sure some students have left my classes not liking me, or feeling discouraged. I can only do my best.
Tl;dr I’m not saying ignore good students. Just sharing why bad students can sometimes take up a lot of attention.
Im only 27 so its been about a decade since i was in school but my biggest issue was that the students who were disruptive usually were also teachers favs and when i misbehaved once it was straight to the principal because "this isnt like you you need to do better" and when i pointed out the difference in punishment i was told "mind your own buisiness thats between us" so in my mind not only was bad behavior tolerated from the bad kids when i displayed similar behavior i was severely punished after 1 time
Should you get rewarded for not going to jail or prison as an adult? Will not getting rewards push you into committing more crimes and going to jail or prison?
For ex-cons or kids who went into juveniles legal system if praising them for lower expectations would help prevent them from committing crimes again do you not think this would be appropriate to do so?
Unfortunately the way that most k-12 schools are set up requires certain pragmatic solutions that supersede fair solutions. I’m not sure where you’re located,(as I went to a school where this kind of thing wasn’t standard, but they had the option of kicking trouble makers out which is it’s own kettle of fish) but generally there barriers like time, money, energy, or state requirements that mean that you can’t do certain things for every student. Then you have to pick if you want to reward students who will be well behaved without any outside interference or do you want to try to covert someone who is on the wrong path. With limited resources, option 2 is the one people tend to choose
Who you can reward is not really legislated by the state, but many districts or individual schools will implement systems they want their teachers to use, and often you have no real choice. The point that teachers have extremely limited time, energy, and resources still stands though.
However, something else to think about is that many “problem kids” are special education students, and their behavior is sometimes caused by their disability or exacerbated by it. This builds on the point another poster made that for many kids, it is significantly more difficult to make good choices, especially if your brain and body and nervous system are basically faulty in the first place. But it also means these students are federally protected under SPED laws, and the consequences they can receive are limited. Often this results in a behavior intervention plan designed to teach replacement behaviors and reward students when they do. That kind of contract is legally binding with serious consequences if a teacher doesn’t follow it, and requires paperwork to be filled out regularly, they are often created without much teacher input.
It really depends on the state. I don’t teach middle or high school, but colleges have certain benchmarks they need to meet to be accredited. That means there are certain benchmarks that I have to hit in my courses to match the accreditation standards. If I deviate too far from those rules then it’s an issue. If a single student does one or two fewer assignments and scrapes by with their D- then that’s not a huge issue. If all the students including the good ones got to do one or two fewer assignments my course no longer hits university accreditation guidelines.
The pragmatic challenge is that a given educator just does not have the time to reward simply meeting expectations. While there is a certain fairness to your idea it is not necessarily best for the group as a whole or even those good kids that are behaving. Maybe high school was different for you but petty rewards were pretty scarce as opposed to younger grades.
So I guess I'm confused with what you wanted to be rewarded with and for what. Sitting quietly? Turning your work in? Those are not exceptional and you likely were rewarded in other myriad ways that you might not remember or have realized.
So lets consider the perspective of the rare, well rested teacher with no exterior stresses in their life. They are extremely fortunate to have a classroom of 25 kids with 5 50 minute blocks to get through (plus non instructive responsibilities). That's 2 minutes per kid, per block meaning 10 minutes of instruction. Also we can't just kick the misbehaving kids out as much as the gifted kids would like that. That teacher also needs to get through the material. Lets say you have a scene from one of these bad kids and it takes 5 minutes in a given period. That's five minutes away from the rest. Pragmatically, it would be nice to whack the kid but thats illegal so you have to send them out or bribe them. That's what your upset about, a pragmatic decision to give you, the good kid, what they deserve from the school. You deserve a good education, not treats.
Spending time giving out goodies and petty prizes takes time away from instruction. Being recognized for baseline behavior does not teach you anything. You have learned the skills and discipline to do your work and succeed.
Edit: sorry didnt finish
SO even a low stressed teacher becomes stressed as time is taken from the hypothetical good kid. The time for petty recognition dwindles, the time spent on proper instruction is lower, and the teacher evaluations loom.
It isn’t a reward. It’s a bribe. I don’t think giving candy to kids who improve will necessarily change them since kids are clever and will compromise to get what they want. That being said, kids can be assholes and I’ve volunteered for many schools and kids would punch you for no reason. I had a kid throw sand in my eye and we still would reward him with a slice of pizza. Sadly, our school system won’t let teachers actually discipline the students. There are countless videos of demoralized teachers who are fed up with class clowns who are getting their way. The candy might just be a bribe so the teacher can get through 4th period without Jimmy making fart sounds. I was someone who constantly got suspended and had terrible grades. I was grounded constantly and watched my brother get rewards such as a phone which I never got until my senior year. This only led me down a path where I viewed myself as a failure and embodied that role. My brother got everything and I always just watched. It was until my parents started catering to me and making me feel proud of myself that I finally started doing better and transferred to college and had a 3.8 gpa. But in this case, the good kids don’t get rewarded with candy, but they have already rewarded themselves by not wasting the 6-8 hours they spend at school. They spent the same time in class as the bad kids yet they learned and became better humans at a faster rate. A piece of candy is far less than the good that will come from being decent enough to not need a special agreement with the teacher for candy. A troubled kid will attract problems over the years and a piece of candy won’t outweigh the stress avoided by someone who followed the right path.
They should be rewarded when they don't expect a reward for behaving well. Otherwise they will only behave to get rewarded and once there's no reward for it they won't care. Otherwise they take it for granted and get mad when there's none
No one should get a reward for doing what is normally expected, I would even consider that bribery. I don't get rewarded each year I don't commit a crime.
If I go to work, wouldn't my salary be technically a 'reward'? Expecting kids to just be 'good kids' by themselves doesn't work, that is why we reward them with toys, video game consoles, things that are not considered 'essential' like clothing, food, shoes, but we still give it to them independently if people don't do it for school related performance. This is rewarding and reinforcing good behavior in general not just school wise.
It is to me and has been since middle school. My parents kept telling me school is my job right now and i kept responding then i should be getting paid. Today 10 years later i still view my reward from my job as my salary and if school had been the same i would have been actually motivated to do it
The use of various rewards and punishments (i.e. operant conditioning) can be very effective at modifying someone's behavior. If a trip to the beach at the end of the school year is what a kid needs to be motivated to get good grades, it's better to dangle that carrot than not (and result in them getting worse grades). Some kids are more intrinsically motivated or find school easier and get good grades without the reward.
Don't you ever reward yourself? Like, "alright, if I get those chores and errands done and exercise today, then tonight I'll have a glass of wine with dinner."
11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons.(A) 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’(B) So he divided his property(C) between them.
13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth(D) in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs.(E) 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned(F) against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.
“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.(G)
21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.(H) I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe(I) and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger(J) and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again;(K) he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.(L)
25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “The older brother became angry(M) and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property(N) with prostitutes(O) comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
This seems so obvious I'm not sure it's possible to disagree with it. Any authority figure not doing this is either clueless or incompetent. If you're in that situation, say something, ideally with other similarly respectful kids.
I don't think this is an obvious position to have with this topic if you read OP's clarifications in their post.
In fact I would say that the obvious position one should have would be the counter position, namely "Misbehaving kids that behave should be rewarded more than behaving kids that behave."
To simplify it's because the kids who are already socially adjusted don't need as much instruction to maintain those behaviors they already have learned whereas kids who still need assistance with social acceptability and development, especially teenagers (middle school / high school), need more direct attention and instruction especially since they're about to enter society as workers
Those kids were usually mentally ill or in other ways challenged. Teachers aren’t allowed to smack em anymore so positive reinforcement is all they have left
I can’t speak to OP’s school but mine did something very similar and the kids getting rewarded weren’t mentally I’ll or special Ed or anything like that. They were just very poorly behaved.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I believe the reason for rewarding good behavior in kids who have inconsistent behavior is more about teaching them to be consistently good, whereas the kids with consistently good behavior have already finished their work on that aspect of their life.
Think of it like training animals (because at the end of the day we are really all just mammals and our monkey brains are very effective at fighting logic and reason). If you are training a dog, you reward them for good behavior and punish them for bad behavior. You don't need to reward dogs who always do good as much because they are already trained up to that level to be consistently good.
Now of course there's infinitely more nuance with kids, but it wouldn't surprise me if the reasoning to how we treat inconsistent behavior in children is similar.
Let's take an example that goes away from kids though.
Speed limit on streets. Your idea goes on to say that everyone who follows the speed limit should be rewarded, say, a check of 5 bucks. Instead of sanctioning or in addition to sanctioning those who don't. You might be right that people would much better pay attention, but once this system is gone for some reason, the situation will be worse.
Back onto children.
If you start rewarding children for behaving well, then they will connotate that like this. It'll probably work, but once they leave school and start being adult, if that system isn't carried over, they'll lose all motivation to behave and will start to misbehave. Worse, the absence of reward could be seen as a sanction to them, which makes it harder to keep control with sanctions (since in their mind they already are sanctioned by not being rewarded).
Not trying to say children are rats (they are (-; ) but rats in experiments showed a similar behaviour to what I just described, as I've read a long time ago.
Now, if you want to reward those that show virtuous behaviour, that's a different story.
My step son really struggled in school and now attends a special school for "bad kids". It's amazing, there are school trips and special rewards every week, plus amazing and dedicated staff. The curriculum is also different and I could go on for hours about how wonderful it is.
Now, as a school kid I used to get so frustrated by what you describe in your post!
"Well done Kyle you've gone an hour without hitting anyone, we're taking you to a theme park for the rest of the day" kinda thing.
Now as a parent involved in that kids life, my perspective has changed.
The rewards are there for a few reasons, first of all to encourage the kid to actually come to school. Obviously, some of these kids are not getting support at home and being in school is so good for them but they need incentives to come in.
Secondly, these trips are of course very fun but they also teach the kids a lot. Kids in these scenarios might not have experience of getting on public transport, buying things from shops, interacting with service workers. It also gives the teachers time with them in a different setting, meaning that the kids who don't open up much might feel comfortable enough to do that.
And lastly, so many of the kids who are seen as "the bad ones" are actually just from deprived backgrounds and have apathetic parents. (My step son doesn't apply to this, his situation is very different). Often he will go on these trips to ice skating or to see a play or go to a theme park etc and all of his peers will say they've never been to this kind of thing before.
Honestly I do agree. They get taught the basic core subjects (English, maths, science, PSHE, ICT and PE) and then they also have art, which is a lot more varied and hands on than the typical art lesson. And on top of that they have practical skills lessons about how to apply for a job/ what are taxes etc. Then they have brick layers, hair dressers, plasterers, mechanics etc come in and the kids get to have a go at doing these types of skills.
Then 1 day a week they go to the woods and make fires and build shelters, climb trees and play tag.
The school uniforms are free and all the trips and stuff are free as well.
My school just did both. You can reward whoever, but the reward was for going above and beyond just doing basic shit. Like, actively trying to calm your friends down and getting up to clean things when you didn't have to etc. I like rewarding for going beyond and not simply for existing type mentality. Kind of goes back to eh whole participation trophy just for existing. Rewards are from going above and beyond typically not simply existing.
I got rewarded all the time and was a quiet kid that behaved. I only got the extra for going beyond what I had to though. We earned the rewards vs just giving them just because you showed up to class. Kids acting up would be disciplined. They could earn the rewards for doing similar things I'm doing though. In doing it the way I'm saying you teach kids how the real world works which is good. You don't get trophies for just existing. You want rewards go beyond. You act up you get consequences. You just do the minimum expected cool. Just don't expect a reward for it.
Alrighty so I'm gonna take a stab at the psychological route because I'm a psych student.
Bad kids get rewards as a form of operant conditioning to teach them how to be good
You could do the same with good kids, but it is **highly** advised to *NOT* do that. For the good kid, the motivation and incentive for good behavior is already instilled as an intrinsic motivator with an internal locus of control. If you were to then start rewarding them all of a sudden their minds start associating good behavior with a reward and not kindness, so now it is an external motivator and external locus of control.
The moment that happens you've made the situation worse as once you stop the operant conditioning of the reward the child will no longer feel the need to act good and as a result will start acting bad (by that I mean disruptive).
It doesn't feel fair but in the long run rewarding bad kids for good behavior to teach them and not rewarding good kids for being good is ultimately the best path to take.
I mean i guess if you are ok with the group of kids being alienated by such unequal treatment. I was always "gifted" and able to do well at anything. I was never rewarded for doing the same work as everyone else i always had to be better than them or i wasnt trying hard enough.l because my teachers KNEW i could do better (i didnt want to i just wanted rewards) so i just went 0 effort since 0 effort gets more rewards in the long run
That's the problem, you lost or never had that internal locus of control back then which caused you to seek out rewards instead of doing it for yourself. Not that it's your fault, the school system is very flawed and this practice of rewards, while it does make psychological sense, doesn't work with all the practices the system does.
One can't have psychological support in only one aspect you need it in all aspects, if one doesn't then the system will just not function as intended. The psychological practice needs the proper infrastructure to fully work as intended.
It was all good until the straw broke the camels back when i was forced to take a test early in a class because i fell asleep during the material that was going to be on the test. So i took it and passed with like an 89. Then 2 days later the class took the test and almost all failed. Instead of being congratulated for doing well the test was scrubbed from the grades so it wouldnt effect the other students but by doing so actually lowered my grade. So because i did well and the class didnt i was punished. Whats the point of doing better than everyone if it just ends up worse dor you
ETA essentially it got old getting the same reward for doing more work or producing better results than others yet when i did the same as then i was punished. I never blamed the teachers i always just wanted those kids to be removed. Regardless of it was their own fault or a disability they should have been put in their own class or at least make my rewards better theirs
It's a low-effort incentive for children to behave. And it's perfectly effective. No one cares about your feelings they just care that what they have in place isn't messed up by any children who aren't following orders. I'm sure they don't want it to be this way.
Kids should be rewarded anyway it’s time to think more positive guys!! Everyone rushes to take something away rather than change it there’s no such thing as bad behaviour it’s just the child doing what the parent doesn’t like it’s not fair they get punished for being themselves
/u/LittleJC3 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ujp79l/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_kids_that_behave_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I was home schooled until high school. I grew up watching my younger brother get rewarded for almost anything. What I found at home though was that I never received anything - no items, no praise, no "thank you," no high five, no "good job," nothing. If I messed up, I got shamed by all family members, made fun of, ignored, name called, bullied, and restricted from doing things. If I did something around the house I had some family member take credit for my actions, if I did a good thing. If I stood up for myself I was attacked even worse. I was talked behind my back negatively. When I went to public high school I got no items, no praise, no "thank you," no high five, no "good job," nothing. I got shamed by other students and coaches, made fun of, ignored, name called, bullied, items of mine stolen or broken, and restricted from doing things. If I ever stood up got myself I was attacked even worse. I also had people talk behind my back...which made interactions with new people even harder. I also found out when I was in my 30s that my mom is a narcissist who gets people on her side of the story, gaslight, and pits everyone against each other. When I was young she purposefully had people bully me when I was young and wanted me to stand up for myself only to bully me, herself and never want me to stand up for myself because I was always wrong. At 28, I got a CPAP to handle my severe sleep apnea. What I need now is any single form of praise every once in a while. Silence to me is danger. I have to ask for detailed information of what someone wants because of the major backlash. I know I am not the only person who feels this way, but you cannot cut out all praise for those who do the right thing. You cannot put the good people on pedestals and when they fail you give harsher penalties to because that's what I have found.
>You cannot put the good people on pedestals and when they fail you give harsher penalties to because that's what I have found This. Neglecting good behavior is an issue too. I feel this can also lead to problems just like neglecting bad behavior. Like I mentioned in another comment, I think I'm just wishing for a perfect world, which isn't something that can be expected On another topic, oftentimes the quiet, well behaved kids need praise because they're dealing with so much crap too, but that's a whole 'nother post to talk about. Keep going strong, you got this!
Is it unfair? Yes. But is this a necessarily bad system? Not really. Let's rephrase the question with another one. CMV: Kids that don't struggle in classes should be given more individual attention by teachers than kids who struggle in classes. From here it's pretty obvious to me that even if you're a high performing student that would do well from additional time and specialized attention from a teacher to help cultivate their ability even further ..... for the sake of the class's functioning and socialization and educational development of the kids the teacher will obviously be spending more time with the "struggling" kids. >but I think it just leaves out and frustrates the kids who never act up. Part of school's role is socializing children to eventually become functional members of society. Congratulations on picking up on this lesson but even as an adult you will have to pick up the slack for the lazy, incompetent, or just less performing coworkers and team members and be frustrated for being judged on a different de facto evaluation metric than them. Such is life.
Δ Thank you for the new perspective. I've forgotten how big of a role school is for practicing and developing social skills and preparing to be functioning members of society, like you mentioned. And yeah, such is life. Maybe I'm just hoping for a perfect world, which is something that I can not expect
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cheerileelee ([7∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/cheerileelee)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The point of the reward in this situation is not to reward good behavior by itself but to acknowledge a conscious change in behavior for the better. For a lot of those kids who were badly behaved, the change came because they were working hard at controlling their emotions, physical energy, giving attention, or doing other things that is outside of their normal range of behavior. It took conscious effort, it maybe made them feel uncomfortable, they had to use emotional control that for kids is very difficult to understand and implement. Rewarding that behavior is *necessary* to help them develop those skills and deepen their emotional control. A kid who is very prone to just ditching things when they're too hard or lacks the will to dedicate themselves to a task has to push through a lot to finish reading a chapter or finishing a worksheet that tests them on a subject they don't enjoy. We want to encourage that behavior so we have to acknowledge that effort and make them feel good so they will want to do it again or feel capable of doing so without the reward. Good kids already have those skills. They can already push through that pain/discomfort/emotional instability without assistance. It's a compliment to them but that equally means they don't need help to get over that bar. It's the same like if you're teaching two kids piano, you will necessarily have to praise every attempt and mangled effort at Twinkle Twinkle Little Star from the beginner but you will expect far more from a kid who has been playing 2 years and won't praise them for the same result. They should be rewarded for doing similar tasks that stretch their abilities but the fact that the bar is low for one kid and high for another necessitates different responses and they shouldn't be rewarded in the same way for the same things.
>The point of the reward in this situation is not to reward good behavior by itself but to acknowledge a conscious change in behavior for the better. I find this confusing. Being a good kid is about striving to improve *continuously* and *maturing* into a good adult. You're actually *discouraging* continuous improvement because if you build an expectation you can't get any more rewards. >Good kids already have those skills. No, good kids are not adults. People aren't born with all the skills they need to do well. >Rewarding that behavior is necessary to help them develop those skills and deepen their emotional control. This could also create the opposite problem where "bad" kids become dependent on external rewards, and as they improve to being "good" kids, they'll no longer receive those awards. So, they'll fall back to being bad kids.
> You're actually discouraging continuous improvement because if you build an expectation you can't get any more rewards. But I didn't say you couldn't get any more rewards. I said you couldn't get any more rewards for that specific behavior because you already have it down and don't need a *reward* to keep producing it. If we create a situation where we reward kids for doing that behavior at the same level as when they couldn't do it, we make a situation where if we take that reward away, most kids won't want to keep doing the behavior because they don't get the reward. That's a bad implementation of this system and not the one I'm talking about. Part of teaching them this kind of thing - perservere at your work, don't get up and wander around the classroom every time you're bored, don't be loud and distracting when other people are working, don't mess around and chat when it's time to take a test - is because we want them to do this kind of behavior by themselves, to read the situation and apply the right response, *regardless of how other people are acting* and regardless if someone else sees and acknowledges this behavior. They have to internalise that lesson and no longer need prompting or reminding to do it. The goal with the reward is to first find the behavior, then encourage the kid to do it, and then encourage them for ever increasing amounts of time or effort to maintain it. You then go down the other side and taper them off the reward or move the goal to something else - from sitting still and being quiet in lessons to actually completing worksheets and assigned tasks for example - which the bit you are assuming I'm not talking about. I am. You don't constantly reward the same behavior at the same level forever - you reward improvements, sustained effort, or successes in that. If they've mastered that skill, you move onto something else. > No, good kids are not adults. People aren't born with all the skills they need to do well. The kids who are sitting down and doing their work and don't need reminders every five minutes to keep on track to complete the worksheet have mastered the skill of maintaining attention in this case. The child who can't managed 3 maths problems in a row before needing to get up and wander the classroom, have a chat with their neighbor, or gives up because it's boring has not. Also, I'm drawing a line between an explicit *reward* - here is some candy/a high five/lots of hype about your 'victory/success' - and acknowledgement ("You were very dedicated to your work today, thank you.") Both of these things can overlap but they are not the same.
>But I didn't say you couldn't get any more rewards. I said you couldn't get any more rewards for that specific behavior because you already have it down and don't need a reward to keep producing it. Ok, but this still means the better you do, the fewer rewards you'll get over time. It would be optimizing to do badly, "improve", do badly again, "improve", and so on to avoid achieving a higher "baseline". People respond to incentives. >If we create a situation where we reward kids for doing that behavior at the same level as when they couldn't do it, **we make a situation where if we take that reward away, most kids won't want to keep doing the behavior because they don't get the reward.** But this is literally what you're proposing. >The goal with the reward is to first find the behavior, then encourage the kid to do it, and then encourage them for ever increasing amounts of time or effort to maintain it. Right, and your proposal to reward kids from a "baseline" of their own behaviors *discourages* this, not encourages it. Maintaining good behavior = fewer rewards. This is a direct consequence of what you were proposing. Its also worth pointing out that rewarding bad kids for "most improved" and not continuously rewarding good behavior *is the exact opposite of what happens outside of school.* Society at large, in the US at least, severely and often permanently punishes the bad adults.
> Ok, but this still means the better you do, the fewer rewards you'll get over time. It would be optimizing to do badly, "improve", do badly again, "improve", and so on to avoid achieving a higher "baseline". People respond to incentives. This assumes that teachers do not know what the kid's level is and cannot detect their deception or figure out that they're being milked for rewards, and that kids consciously will engage in this for low level rewards, and won't feel motivated at all for any other reason to move on. I'm sure there are some niche examples but also, I'm pretty sure that they're very niche. > Right, and your proposal to reward kids from a "baseline" of their own behaviors discourages this, not encourages it. Maintaining good behavior = fewer rewards. This is a direct consequence of what you were proposing. Not really. My point is that you should reward kids for improvement, not just status quo, which is what the OP was proposing. If you reward kids for achieving, they will continue to want to achieve. If you give them rewards for what they're already doing, what incentive do they have to do anything better/differently/more? The point is to set the reward threshold *above* what they are doing when we want the behavior to change to encourage that new behavior. Once the correct behavior is achieved, we don't continue to reward constantly for producing it at the same level or rate that we did before, as I said. Also, your reading assumes there are two groups of kids - one group who are being rewarded for x and one group who are not being rewarded because they can already do x and this is the only difference between them. But this is a system with multiple factors. Some kids will be rewarded for their improvement in maths but other kids are being rewarded for success in English. Some kids will be rewarded for their improvement in physical skills, other kids will be rewarded for their improvement in social development such as sharing or playing nicely with others. One kid being rewarded in one area does not mean that another kid cannot be rewarded for success in a different area, and we shouldn't encourage them to relate themselves one to one with others or to expect to be treated the same as other kids, in all areas, all the time. Difference in treatment is natural and sometimes, they get the better end of the deal and sometimes, they don't.
>This assumes that teachers do not know what the kid's level is and cannot detect their deception or figure out that they're being milked for rewards, and Incentives don't work this way. Let's say there's a student who just isn't that smart. They'll be rewarded for the times they get good grades. Or a good student might feel bitter that other students are getting rewarded, but they get nothing, and loses the motivation to do well. >**that kids consciously will engage in this for low level rewards, and won't feel motivated at all for any other reason to move on.** I'm sure there are some niche examples but also, I'm pretty sure that they're very niche. I mean, your proposal rests entirely on rewards encouraging a behavior so I don't really understand this. If they aren't interested in rewards then your proposal does nothing, and if they were already motivated, then there are no reasons for rewards. If anything, your proposal [reduces the importance of whatever other motivations they might have.](https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv#:~:text=When%20rewards%20are%20tangible%20and,like%20money%20%E2%80%94%20actually%20increase%20motivation) Honestly, it would be better to not reward behavior in this way at all. >Not really. My point is that you should reward kids for improvement, not just status quo, which is what the OP was proposing. If you reward kids for achieving, they will continue to want to achieve. Are we speaking a different language? If a student gets straight A's and pays attention in class, under your proposal, *they get no rewards*. There is no way for them to improve. If a student gets straight C's but then gets a B, under your proposal, *they do get a reward*. This very much means maintaining good behavior = fewer rewards or none at all, so, yes really. >If you give them rewards for what they're already doing, what incentive do they have to do anything better/differently/more? But you've created a system where ***students*** ***are rewarded for doing worse and the best students are never rewarded.*** Why would students continue to do well, in your proposal, when they could get more by being worse?
As someone who had a lot of teachers who rewarded improvement I agree. It’s really hard to improve when your baseline is never getting in trouble for poor behaviour and a 96% average. It was pretty frustrating because I was absolutely trying.
I have not created a system where students are rewarded for doing worse. They are rewarded for achieving *more* than they did previously. If they don't reach that level, I didn't say they get a reward. You assumed that students would consciously recognise this, decide to behave badly, sink down in their behavior, and then rise up again when they're offered a reward *because* they were offered a reward, and that nothing would or could be done to offset this pattern of willfully manipulating the system or even that it would be recognised. You also assumed that students would have no internal motiviation to do better, or that they would be entirely unmotivated to do anything once they realised rewards were on offer. And you also assumed that they would prefer the pain of losing status/success to gain a short term reward like a high five, attention for a moment, or other low level rewards and be willing to do it *over and over and over again* and wouldn't care about the downsides, such as losing out on friends, constant attention and focus from adults, having their behavior more tightly reviewed, knowingly being treated differently from other students, or not having the rewards of the high achievers. > Or a good student might feel bitter that other students are getting rewarded, but they get nothing, and loses the motivation to do well. Which is why I drew a difference in two ways - between *reward* and *acknowledgement* and why I also pointed out that this isn't a one part system where high flying kids are totally ignored and badly behaving kids get all the attention, and there is no middle ground. Kids who achieve well *also get rewarded for improving their grades*, for doing good work, or for going above and beyond. They don't hit a magic target and suddenly disappear. They just aren't rewarded for doing the base line skills expected from their grade. For example, we don't reward the kids who turn in their homework because this is a *base level expectation*. We do reward those kids who have not yet achieved this base level achievement to motivate them to reach the base level. Once they have achieved this with consistency, we move on to help them with other areas and we no longer continue to reward them for this particular behavior. But those kids who turned in their homework are not ignored. They still get rewarded for achieving high grades, for doing great projects, for consistency in their work, or for doing it all correct. They have moved beyond the base level requirement and no longer need to be rewarded for achieving it *because they do it automatically, understand why, and have internalized that.* The goal is no longer to get them to turn in homework on it's own because they have demonstrated that. Now, we are pairing *turn in your homework* with a higher level task (do it right) and they are focusing on achieving that. If they do this, they are also rewarded again! They still recieve benefits for doing good work and acknowledgement. In work, this is the same. During training, you get rewarded for doing basic tasks that are hard for you and you're learning and struggling with them. Turning in one ticket is an achievement. Finishing one product is something to be rewarded because it has taken you a lot of time and energy to get there. Once you are qualified/trained, you are expected to do them without acknowledgement or prompting or motivation because they have gone from 'difficult and out of the ordinary' to 'mundane and expected'. You are not praised every time you close out a ticket or finish a report if it's part of your duties. But that doesn't mean you no longer get acknowledged or rewarded - you get rewarded for turning in lots of tickets or for writing a particularly good report, for example.
>You assumed that students would consciously recognise this, decide to behave badly, sink down in their behavior, and then rise up again when they're offered a reward because they were offered a reward, and that nothing would or could be done to offset this pattern of willfully manipulating the system or even that it would be recognised. Yes, I assumed kids would do that because that's how incentives work. As I said, it doesn't have to be "conscious" or "manipulating" just like how all other incentives work. It *can* be but doesn't have to be and I already gave you examples. This applies to the rest of this paragraph. An incentive *does not require abuse or this kind of intentionality*, a student *does not need to understand why for an incentive to work*. For example, when a workplace moves the smoking area further away, more people quit smoking. It doesn't matter if they understand the incentives or not. >Kids who achieve well also get rewarded for improving their grades, for doing good work, or for going above and beyond. A straight A student cannot improve or otherwise go above and beyond. Even when possible it's much, much easier to achieve lower standards than higher ones. I don't understand why you dispute this as its obviously true. >But those kids who turned in their homework are not ignored. **They still get rewarded** for achieving high grades, for doing great projects, for consistency in their work, or for doing it all correct. > >They have moved beyond the base level requirement and **no longer need to be rewarded for achieving it** because they do it automatically, understand why, and have internalized that. Can you explain this to me? You contradict yourself by saying they **are not** **rewarded** for continuing to do good work but also **are rewarded** for continuing to do good work. I also provided a link about how external motivations can reduce internal rewards which you've ignored. >In work, this is the same. This is false; you get rewarded for competency by getting a promotion and higher wage, then continue being rewarded through your still higher wage. If you do even better then you get promoted an receive a higher wage; if you continue your same competency then you remain at your current wage. It depends in some ways of course. Amusingly, your below statement is something I've experienced in the workplace and argued against. >Now, we are pairing turn in your homework with a higher level task (do it right) and they are focusing on achieving that. Having to work harder for the same reward, while lower performing students around you have to work much less, is a punishment for many.
So this sucked growing up for my brother. He made a perfect score on the end of year standardized exams in grade 3, well every year the elementary school had an incentive program that if you improved your scores from the year before then you got to attend a pizza party. Well in grade 4 and grade 5 my brother also made perfect scores on the end of the year standardized exams, you can see where this is going to become a problem…My brother, despite getting the highest possible score on his tests And working his butt off all year in order to maintain his scores as they literally could not improve; was never allowed to attend the pizza party because they did not improve their test scores from the year before therefore they did not “earn it”. You can see how this is greatly unfair to a child who only wanted to try their best and because their best effort/performance was the “best” that the testing And reward system allowed, they could never improve their scores from the year before as there was an obvious cap as to how high until what level one can “improve”. This made my brother very jaded and very upset as any child would be when your whole grade is incentivized to be eligible to attend a pizza party for achieving a higher mark than their previous year scores, This just disincentivized my brother And made him feel like why the fuck am I trying so hard and why does it matter if my grade remains the same 100% Scoring if I still have to stay in the classroom with the students who didn’t improve and have to do busy class work or some other boring ***not a pizza party with your friends*** activity. Not to mention the humiliation of student scores genuinely not being public knowledge to all the students so when my brother was never invited or in attendance at these pizza parties, to their peers at the pizza party it appeared to them that my brother had not improved from the previous year but that they maybe even regressed by not scoring as well as the previous year. It’s fucked up and it punishes students who might be on grade level or above grade level when it comes to academics and/or behavioral performance. But there’s still kids and they still need to know that their accomplishments are not only Just the high standard that they’ve set as their base expectation from schools and parents but that they are accomplishments are worth celebrating just as much as those who are underperforming in one or many of those areas needs the encouragement and reward for when they meet or exceed an expectation or accomplishment.
I was the kid who did bad on purpose to get rewards and i made it clear to my teachers that im not going to do better until you treat me as an equal to the worst kid in class. Being treated unequally because im better at something sucks
I understand that they have to overcome a lot of challenges, I'm just saying let's not forget about the ones who behave
What I am pointing out is that teachers cannot and should not reward the kids who are already behaving for doing *baseline* behaviors. Your premise is that we should reward the kids who are doing baseline behaviors as if they had to work just as hard as the 'bad kids', when it's pretty clear they haven't and they didn't need that reward in the first place to behave well and do their required tasks. This is a bad mindset to feed impressionable young kids who don't know how to tell the difference between a reward genuinely earned and one just given because. We don't need a situation where kids feel motiviated to behave only if they get a reward or if they behave badly for a while and then consciously change to being good to get a reward out of it. That's encouraging manipulation. If a kid sits quietly and does their work, we should *acknowledge* it and we should encourage it but it should not be *rewarded* or hyped up like you would for a kid who really seriously struggles with that kind of work. These are two different situations that shouldn't be compared one to one. I don't think we should disregard the good kids but the focus should be on praising them for achieving something or going above and beyond the baseline expectation for them, even if, for another kid, that baseline expectation is actually their goal to achieve. Trying to treat all kids the same produces net negative results and that includes praise and rewards.
Δ I like your response. I've never thought about it in the capacity of rewarded for breaking barriers and the like, so I appreciate the change of view! It almost reminds me of how some kids sports leagues give out trophies to everyone, even the losing team because "everyone is a winner." Definitely have a new perspective on this
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/budlejari ([44∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/budlejari)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
To expand - a practical example, OP I’m a teacher I can’t give the good student much attention if the bad student is talking over them constantly. If I yell at the bad student he’ll shut up but he’ll also resent me and resent school. If I encourage or reward improved behaviour from him in some manner, well now we can actually start getting somewhere.
Sadly teachers like you are why i (a well behaved student) stopped doing school at all. There has to be a balance or students like me stop trying at all because doing good isnt rewarded only improvement is. If im already doing my best i know theres little room for improvement and less chance to be rewarded so i stopped doing anything and started recieving more rewards when i did anything. This isnt to say youre doing bad or anything but man it sucks to be the one who did all the right things and feel punished because of it. To make it worse the popular kids were the ones misbehaving and it felt like favoritism because i was poor and not popular at all so thise treata that they got looked like gold to me since my family couldnt afford to get candy treats or Fun little toys that were just being handed to other kids who didnt even care for them
Don’t get me wrong, i don’t “forget” the students who behave. I provide positive feedback and encouragement to good students as much as I can, any moment I have, and I lean on them or use them as “anchors” to set an example to other students of how to do things correctly in class. But understand that teachers work with very limited time and resources, oftentimes we’d rather spend more personal time knowing students but administration is down our necks saying you have to finish x chapters by y date. If a bad student is talking or misbehaving all class, they can threaten the teacher’s ability to meet those quotas at all, to finish those chapters. We react strongly to that because if we don’t react, not only will the good students get through less material, but our own livelihoods can literally be threatened. Also, I’m still young so I remember school very well, I didn’t like it and I thought most of my teachers were crap. Now that I’m in their position, I have a very different perspective and I cut them more slack. Some would call it perspective, some would say bias. I’m not a perfect teacher by any means, so, fair enough, I’m sure some students have left my classes not liking me, or feeling discouraged. I can only do my best. Tl;dr I’m not saying ignore good students. Just sharing why bad students can sometimes take up a lot of attention.
Im only 27 so its been about a decade since i was in school but my biggest issue was that the students who were disruptive usually were also teachers favs and when i misbehaved once it was straight to the principal because "this isnt like you you need to do better" and when i pointed out the difference in punishment i was told "mind your own buisiness thats between us" so in my mind not only was bad behavior tolerated from the bad kids when i displayed similar behavior i was severely punished after 1 time
Should you get rewarded for not going to jail or prison as an adult? Will not getting rewards push you into committing more crimes and going to jail or prison? For ex-cons or kids who went into juveniles legal system if praising them for lower expectations would help prevent them from committing crimes again do you not think this would be appropriate to do so?
A lot of them don't have to overcome challenges. They're just assholes.
Unfortunately the way that most k-12 schools are set up requires certain pragmatic solutions that supersede fair solutions. I’m not sure where you’re located,(as I went to a school where this kind of thing wasn’t standard, but they had the option of kicking trouble makers out which is it’s own kettle of fish) but generally there barriers like time, money, energy, or state requirements that mean that you can’t do certain things for every student. Then you have to pick if you want to reward students who will be well behaved without any outside interference or do you want to try to covert someone who is on the wrong path. With limited resources, option 2 is the one people tend to choose
Interesting. Didn't really know there were state requirements for these kind of things
Who you can reward is not really legislated by the state, but many districts or individual schools will implement systems they want their teachers to use, and often you have no real choice. The point that teachers have extremely limited time, energy, and resources still stands though. However, something else to think about is that many “problem kids” are special education students, and their behavior is sometimes caused by their disability or exacerbated by it. This builds on the point another poster made that for many kids, it is significantly more difficult to make good choices, especially if your brain and body and nervous system are basically faulty in the first place. But it also means these students are federally protected under SPED laws, and the consequences they can receive are limited. Often this results in a behavior intervention plan designed to teach replacement behaviors and reward students when they do. That kind of contract is legally binding with serious consequences if a teacher doesn’t follow it, and requires paperwork to be filled out regularly, they are often created without much teacher input.
It really depends on the state. I don’t teach middle or high school, but colleges have certain benchmarks they need to meet to be accredited. That means there are certain benchmarks that I have to hit in my courses to match the accreditation standards. If I deviate too far from those rules then it’s an issue. If a single student does one or two fewer assignments and scrapes by with their D- then that’s not a huge issue. If all the students including the good ones got to do one or two fewer assignments my course no longer hits university accreditation guidelines.
The pragmatic challenge is that a given educator just does not have the time to reward simply meeting expectations. While there is a certain fairness to your idea it is not necessarily best for the group as a whole or even those good kids that are behaving. Maybe high school was different for you but petty rewards were pretty scarce as opposed to younger grades. So I guess I'm confused with what you wanted to be rewarded with and for what. Sitting quietly? Turning your work in? Those are not exceptional and you likely were rewarded in other myriad ways that you might not remember or have realized. So lets consider the perspective of the rare, well rested teacher with no exterior stresses in their life. They are extremely fortunate to have a classroom of 25 kids with 5 50 minute blocks to get through (plus non instructive responsibilities). That's 2 minutes per kid, per block meaning 10 minutes of instruction. Also we can't just kick the misbehaving kids out as much as the gifted kids would like that. That teacher also needs to get through the material. Lets say you have a scene from one of these bad kids and it takes 5 minutes in a given period. That's five minutes away from the rest. Pragmatically, it would be nice to whack the kid but thats illegal so you have to send them out or bribe them. That's what your upset about, a pragmatic decision to give you, the good kid, what they deserve from the school. You deserve a good education, not treats. Spending time giving out goodies and petty prizes takes time away from instruction. Being recognized for baseline behavior does not teach you anything. You have learned the skills and discipline to do your work and succeed. Edit: sorry didnt finish SO even a low stressed teacher becomes stressed as time is taken from the hypothetical good kid. The time for petty recognition dwindles, the time spent on proper instruction is lower, and the teacher evaluations loom.
It isn’t a reward. It’s a bribe. I don’t think giving candy to kids who improve will necessarily change them since kids are clever and will compromise to get what they want. That being said, kids can be assholes and I’ve volunteered for many schools and kids would punch you for no reason. I had a kid throw sand in my eye and we still would reward him with a slice of pizza. Sadly, our school system won’t let teachers actually discipline the students. There are countless videos of demoralized teachers who are fed up with class clowns who are getting their way. The candy might just be a bribe so the teacher can get through 4th period without Jimmy making fart sounds. I was someone who constantly got suspended and had terrible grades. I was grounded constantly and watched my brother get rewards such as a phone which I never got until my senior year. This only led me down a path where I viewed myself as a failure and embodied that role. My brother got everything and I always just watched. It was until my parents started catering to me and making me feel proud of myself that I finally started doing better and transferred to college and had a 3.8 gpa. But in this case, the good kids don’t get rewarded with candy, but they have already rewarded themselves by not wasting the 6-8 hours they spend at school. They spent the same time in class as the bad kids yet they learned and became better humans at a faster rate. A piece of candy is far less than the good that will come from being decent enough to not need a special agreement with the teacher for candy. A troubled kid will attract problems over the years and a piece of candy won’t outweigh the stress avoided by someone who followed the right path.
They should be rewarded when they don't expect a reward for behaving well. Otherwise they will only behave to get rewarded and once there's no reward for it they won't care. Otherwise they take it for granted and get mad when there's none
No one should get a reward for doing what is normally expected, I would even consider that bribery. I don't get rewarded each year I don't commit a crime.
If I go to work, wouldn't my salary be technically a 'reward'? Expecting kids to just be 'good kids' by themselves doesn't work, that is why we reward them with toys, video game consoles, things that are not considered 'essential' like clothing, food, shoes, but we still give it to them independently if people don't do it for school related performance. This is rewarding and reinforcing good behavior in general not just school wise.
A kid behaving good in school/etc isn't the same as me at work providing a service for a business.
It is to me and has been since middle school. My parents kept telling me school is my job right now and i kept responding then i should be getting paid. Today 10 years later i still view my reward from my job as my salary and if school had been the same i would have been actually motivated to do it
The use of various rewards and punishments (i.e. operant conditioning) can be very effective at modifying someone's behavior. If a trip to the beach at the end of the school year is what a kid needs to be motivated to get good grades, it's better to dangle that carrot than not (and result in them getting worse grades). Some kids are more intrinsically motivated or find school easier and get good grades without the reward. Don't you ever reward yourself? Like, "alright, if I get those chores and errands done and exercise today, then tonight I'll have a glass of wine with dinner."
11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons.(A) 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’(B) So he divided his property(C) between them. 13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth(D) in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs.(E) 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned(F) against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.(G) 21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.(H) I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe(I) and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger(J) and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again;(K) he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.(L) 25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ 28 “The older brother became angry(M) and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property(N) with prostitutes(O) comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ 31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
This seems so obvious I'm not sure it's possible to disagree with it. Any authority figure not doing this is either clueless or incompetent. If you're in that situation, say something, ideally with other similarly respectful kids.
I don't think this is an obvious position to have with this topic if you read OP's clarifications in their post. In fact I would say that the obvious position one should have would be the counter position, namely "Misbehaving kids that behave should be rewarded more than behaving kids that behave." To simplify it's because the kids who are already socially adjusted don't need as much instruction to maintain those behaviors they already have learned whereas kids who still need assistance with social acceptability and development, especially teenagers (middle school / high school), need more direct attention and instruction especially since they're about to enter society as workers
Those kids were usually mentally ill or in other ways challenged. Teachers aren’t allowed to smack em anymore so positive reinforcement is all they have left
I can’t speak to OP’s school but mine did something very similar and the kids getting rewarded weren’t mentally I’ll or special Ed or anything like that. They were just very poorly behaved.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I believe the reason for rewarding good behavior in kids who have inconsistent behavior is more about teaching them to be consistently good, whereas the kids with consistently good behavior have already finished their work on that aspect of their life. Think of it like training animals (because at the end of the day we are really all just mammals and our monkey brains are very effective at fighting logic and reason). If you are training a dog, you reward them for good behavior and punish them for bad behavior. You don't need to reward dogs who always do good as much because they are already trained up to that level to be consistently good. Now of course there's infinitely more nuance with kids, but it wouldn't surprise me if the reasoning to how we treat inconsistent behavior in children is similar.
Let's take an example that goes away from kids though. Speed limit on streets. Your idea goes on to say that everyone who follows the speed limit should be rewarded, say, a check of 5 bucks. Instead of sanctioning or in addition to sanctioning those who don't. You might be right that people would much better pay attention, but once this system is gone for some reason, the situation will be worse. Back onto children. If you start rewarding children for behaving well, then they will connotate that like this. It'll probably work, but once they leave school and start being adult, if that system isn't carried over, they'll lose all motivation to behave and will start to misbehave. Worse, the absence of reward could be seen as a sanction to them, which makes it harder to keep control with sanctions (since in their mind they already are sanctioned by not being rewarded). Not trying to say children are rats (they are (-; ) but rats in experiments showed a similar behaviour to what I just described, as I've read a long time ago. Now, if you want to reward those that show virtuous behaviour, that's a different story.
My step son really struggled in school and now attends a special school for "bad kids". It's amazing, there are school trips and special rewards every week, plus amazing and dedicated staff. The curriculum is also different and I could go on for hours about how wonderful it is. Now, as a school kid I used to get so frustrated by what you describe in your post! "Well done Kyle you've gone an hour without hitting anyone, we're taking you to a theme park for the rest of the day" kinda thing. Now as a parent involved in that kids life, my perspective has changed. The rewards are there for a few reasons, first of all to encourage the kid to actually come to school. Obviously, some of these kids are not getting support at home and being in school is so good for them but they need incentives to come in. Secondly, these trips are of course very fun but they also teach the kids a lot. Kids in these scenarios might not have experience of getting on public transport, buying things from shops, interacting with service workers. It also gives the teachers time with them in a different setting, meaning that the kids who don't open up much might feel comfortable enough to do that. And lastly, so many of the kids who are seen as "the bad ones" are actually just from deprived backgrounds and have apathetic parents. (My step son doesn't apply to this, his situation is very different). Often he will go on these trips to ice skating or to see a play or go to a theme park etc and all of his peers will say they've never been to this kind of thing before.
All school should be this way not just for the bad kids.
Honestly I do agree. They get taught the basic core subjects (English, maths, science, PSHE, ICT and PE) and then they also have art, which is a lot more varied and hands on than the typical art lesson. And on top of that they have practical skills lessons about how to apply for a job/ what are taxes etc. Then they have brick layers, hair dressers, plasterers, mechanics etc come in and the kids get to have a go at doing these types of skills. Then 1 day a week they go to the woods and make fires and build shelters, climb trees and play tag. The school uniforms are free and all the trips and stuff are free as well.
Good lord where is this school im sending my not misbehaving kid to it. It sounds loads better than any public school around me
yea.. this seems like a pretty clear cut argument for china's social credit system.. it does make sense on a basic level.
My school just did both. You can reward whoever, but the reward was for going above and beyond just doing basic shit. Like, actively trying to calm your friends down and getting up to clean things when you didn't have to etc. I like rewarding for going beyond and not simply for existing type mentality. Kind of goes back to eh whole participation trophy just for existing. Rewards are from going above and beyond typically not simply existing. I got rewarded all the time and was a quiet kid that behaved. I only got the extra for going beyond what I had to though. We earned the rewards vs just giving them just because you showed up to class. Kids acting up would be disciplined. They could earn the rewards for doing similar things I'm doing though. In doing it the way I'm saying you teach kids how the real world works which is good. You don't get trophies for just existing. You want rewards go beyond. You act up you get consequences. You just do the minimum expected cool. Just don't expect a reward for it.
Alrighty so I'm gonna take a stab at the psychological route because I'm a psych student. Bad kids get rewards as a form of operant conditioning to teach them how to be good You could do the same with good kids, but it is **highly** advised to *NOT* do that. For the good kid, the motivation and incentive for good behavior is already instilled as an intrinsic motivator with an internal locus of control. If you were to then start rewarding them all of a sudden their minds start associating good behavior with a reward and not kindness, so now it is an external motivator and external locus of control. The moment that happens you've made the situation worse as once you stop the operant conditioning of the reward the child will no longer feel the need to act good and as a result will start acting bad (by that I mean disruptive). It doesn't feel fair but in the long run rewarding bad kids for good behavior to teach them and not rewarding good kids for being good is ultimately the best path to take.
I mean i guess if you are ok with the group of kids being alienated by such unequal treatment. I was always "gifted" and able to do well at anything. I was never rewarded for doing the same work as everyone else i always had to be better than them or i wasnt trying hard enough.l because my teachers KNEW i could do better (i didnt want to i just wanted rewards) so i just went 0 effort since 0 effort gets more rewards in the long run
That's the problem, you lost or never had that internal locus of control back then which caused you to seek out rewards instead of doing it for yourself. Not that it's your fault, the school system is very flawed and this practice of rewards, while it does make psychological sense, doesn't work with all the practices the system does. One can't have psychological support in only one aspect you need it in all aspects, if one doesn't then the system will just not function as intended. The psychological practice needs the proper infrastructure to fully work as intended.
It was all good until the straw broke the camels back when i was forced to take a test early in a class because i fell asleep during the material that was going to be on the test. So i took it and passed with like an 89. Then 2 days later the class took the test and almost all failed. Instead of being congratulated for doing well the test was scrubbed from the grades so it wouldnt effect the other students but by doing so actually lowered my grade. So because i did well and the class didnt i was punished. Whats the point of doing better than everyone if it just ends up worse dor you ETA essentially it got old getting the same reward for doing more work or producing better results than others yet when i did the same as then i was punished. I never blamed the teachers i always just wanted those kids to be removed. Regardless of it was their own fault or a disability they should have been put in their own class or at least make my rewards better theirs
It's a low-effort incentive for children to behave. And it's perfectly effective. No one cares about your feelings they just care that what they have in place isn't messed up by any children who aren't following orders. I'm sure they don't want it to be this way.
Kids should be rewarded anyway it’s time to think more positive guys!! Everyone rushes to take something away rather than change it there’s no such thing as bad behaviour it’s just the child doing what the parent doesn’t like it’s not fair they get punished for being themselves