Carrots or Sticks? Rewards and Punishment in Education.

So, how do we get young people to make positive and socially beneficial choices for themselves and others at school, and also, across the entire spectrum of their life?  Isn't this, in fact and in essence, the fundamental goal of education---to create intelligent, engaged, informed, socially alert and considerate choice-makers?

Can you say "mega-topic"?  One that simultaneously cuts across ethics, religion, politics, family, psychology, sociology, evolutionary theory and biology.  And, a topic which, America somehow believes its teachers can resolve with little fuss, bother or debate.

What we are talking about here, given the range of individuals and personalities involved, the range of curricular and teaching strategies, the range of familial and social factors--is a question which borders on trying to unravel the nature of reality itself.  What works?  How do we get kids to do the right thing?

Good luck on that. 

Luckily, smart people have examined this topic and accumulated significant data and insight around what tends to work, and what tends to screw things up. 

The seminal text that I am aware of is Alfie Kohn's Punished by Rewards (1993, Houghton-Mifflin).  In that book, Kohn scrupulously uses published research and scientific studies to show over and over again that neither facile bribes (i.e. immediate incentives and rewards), nor immediate punishments, (threats and negative consequences) actually realize their desired end-results. 

That such tactics tend to encourage the desired behavior at such superficial and incomplete levels, that, at the end of the day, students overall skills, retention and interest actually decline because they are misled about the nature of and reason for learning.

That, in fact, unless and until people are allowed to internalize their choices, harmonize their self-understanding to desired and desirable outcomes, essentially constructing their own ethical choice-making framework, they will not become the kind of sturdy, independent, reliable and insightful choice-maker upon whom healthy families and communities depend.

I bring this up in regard to this article, recently published in the New York Times. In it, the author reports on a school in western New York that has adopted a kind of "intervention program" in which students are rewarded and punished by dint of their grades and test scores. 

In a far-reaching experiment with disciplinary measures reminiscent of old-style Catholic schools or military academies, the Cheektowaga district this year began essentially grounding middle school students whose grade in any class falls below 65, or who show what educators describe as a lack of effort.

Such students — more than a quarter of the 580 at the school as of last week — are excluded from all aspects of extracurricular life, including athletic contests, academic clubs, dances and plays, unless they demonstrate improvement on weekly progress reports filled out by their teachers.

OK, so rewards if you do what the school wants; punishment and sanctions if you do not. 

.... there are social rules that govern nearly every minute of the day, from riding the bus to using the bathroom, as part of a program known as “positive behavioral interventions and supports.” Students are required to keep to the right of the dotted yellow line down the middle of hallways. They are assigned seats in the cafeteria and must wait for a teacher to call them up to get food. If enough students act up or even litter, they all risk a declaration of “silent lunch” in the cafeteria.

“I’d like to go to a normal school,” said Anthony Pachetti, 12, a seventh grader who has been barred from activities for failing math, science and social studies. “It’s not doing anything for me except taking everything away.”

Such harsh regimens are rare, and generally have been found in tough urban schools like Eastside High in Paterson, N.J., where Joe Clark, an Army-drill-instructor-turned-principal, famously expelled dozens of students in a single day in the early 1980s, and inspired the movie “Lean on Me.” Now tough policies are spreading to outlying areas like Cheektowaga at a time when they are facing increased pressure to improve academic achievement. Middle schools, in particular, have long struggled with performance slumps and competing theories on how to strike the right balance between structure and independence for students at a transitional, volatile age. But few have gone as far as Cheektowaga has in clamping down on the natural disorder of early adolescence.

Now, what's the ultimate goal here?  What do we want to achieve in sending our kids to school?

To get them to do their school-work and score better on exams.  Great. Got it.  Who can argue?

But, .... 

Will the process as practiced at this school result in kids becoming better quality students?  Will it help them to self-regulate, self-monitor and become self-reliant?  Will it result in excellence for these kids in terms of extra-curriculars, academics and civic engagement?

For some, maybe.  For most, according to the accumulated research, no.  In fact, it will turn off far more kids than it will ever help.

What this really is about is believing in "behaviorism" as espoused by B.F. Skinner.  For every positive action, give a reward.  For every negative action, invoke a punishment.  Then, like a dog, kids will come when you ring the bell expecting a reward, and cower when you stamp your foot and raise your arm to them. 

Rationally this seems profoundly simple and efficacious, but the truth is that when we do something because someone is watching, because someone will reward or punish us, we essentially surrender our freedom of individual choice and enter a contract arrangement where we only do it because of the dangling before us of item x. 

We have, in fact, given up our freedom and individual will to the "control" of the expected outcome, whether positive or negative.

This is an incredibly mechanistic, and ultimately unbelievably shallow, reason for pursuing anything.

I submit, and as Kohn demonstrates conclusively in his book, what we must do as teachers is allow children the freedom to choose appropriate actions and behavior.  How that is done in practice is all about effective pedagogy, world-class curriculum and solid relationships. 

But, it must be said:  only in an environment predicated on freedom--not control--do young people come to understand and successfully resolve the complexities inherent in making positive choices. 

A cheap reward, a petty punishment, neither of these builds within a person the framework of sound decision-making necessary for success in the long and paradox-ridden journey that is life. 

As teachers, we need to look not at how to punish or reward, but how we can create an environment in classes that values openness, choice, caring, frequent collaboration and super interesting/engaging content.

From that mixture, a young person will be exposed to all that is strong, beautiful and wondrous about being alive and having the opportunity to learn.  We can never control the ultimate outcome for a youngster anyway.

We hope, we model, we encourage and we reinforce good choices, solid effort and strong work when it comes in--but never should we stoop to thinking that we can short-circuit the learning and development process by holding out a carrot or wielding a stick.

And as for that school in Cheektowaga, New York that has elevated behaviorism to a model of educational control:

Deborah Meier, a senior scholar at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Education and a former New York City principal, said that such “law and order” approaches are counterproductive.

“Sounds like prison,” she said of Cheektowaga. “It’s such a sad, sad commentary because, in my opinion, the improvements that it can make in behavior are marginal, and it does not begin to touch upon what engages the students in school.”