Reinforcement Versus Punishment

We have all went through some form of schooling, so I believe this topic pertains to the majority of our membership.

Children in our education system strive for attention. Those that do well in their studies, attract positive attention from their teachers from their marks. This interaction between the child and teacher is a form of positive reinforcement. Children love this attention, they understand it comes from good marks, hence they work hard to receive their grades.

On the other hand we have children that can not keep up in school. The attention they do receive is rarely positive, and they are left with a sense of failure in themselves. But rather than admit their failure, they rebel. Children act out in class, disrupt others, etc., all to gain attention from their peers and the educators. We, in return, punish the children for this behaviour.

Throwing children out of the class room is something I had seen all too much in school. Somebody acted out and was tossed out of the class. What does this do? Why do teachers use this tool of punishment to deal with the situation?

Reinforcement is looking to enhance a behaviour, and obviously we are not looking to increase a negative behaviour, but there are ways around it. Throwing children out of the class room setting is only separating them from the class even more and shining a negative light on them.

Our schools praise themselves on how they are based on inclusion, and the right to every child and their education. Yet every day we are throwing children out of class for the inability to keep up.

Yes, we are not forcing the children to act out. But children starve for attention.

Should our education system preach more reinforcement rather than punishment? Do schools in your locality throw children out of the class room on a regular basis?

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Interesting thoughts, Chissler.

I think the problem may that we are generalizing the entire educational process.

Children need to learn. Teachers must provide the information.

The transition point is where things get fuzzy. Students are innudated with a variety of information from the moment they enter the school environment. From the subject matter encountered through the different times of day/period.........to the inclined memory of individualized interest........to the various (and unpredictable,often uncommunicated) social interactions of the environment. Factor in the various chemical constitutions, as in hormonal and neurotransmitter ratios that are "invariably variable," and the way a specific student reacts to the information that has been presented is going to be different on a case by case basis.

The same can also, similarily, be said about a single student....dependent on experience outside of the school environment...be it familial, religious, or personal motivation.

Yet we hear from the media and political concerns that education is first and foremost, nay, necassary for the future of our society. A different thread could highlight the inherent contradiction emphazised by the corporate and government propaganda......

Yet little is said regarding how students should be taught. We hear everything about more funding, more teachers (or smaller classroom size), and blah, blah, blah.......

en.wikipedia.org...

An excellent concept for those interested in the educational process...as I am. It more or less necessitates a broader perspective of what education means.

Which takes me to your topic, chissler....

The number 1 added to the number 2 is going to be interpreted differently between a myriad of individuals. The individual that interprets, "1+2=......3," instead of, "1+2=3," does not immediately determine the voracity of the student. What has impacted the student? A lack of interest? A lack of interest defined by an attenuation to another stimulii? Or maybe there actually is a lack of attention by the teacher.....who will tend to act favorably to the students who begin the teacher/student relationship with corroborated success?

Too many variables for an actual discourse on the status of our educational system in a political forum.....but maybe perfect for a discourse on ATS....

Originally posted by chissler
Why do teachers use this tool of punishment to deal with the situation?

I'm going to say that they don't know better....OR....that they are probably measuring the needs of the many as opposed to the needs of the one. If a student acts in a manner that disrupts the ability of other students to ingest the information that is being presented, then the disruption has to be taken care of....better to have one missing term paper than a classroom full of missing term papers.....

Which isn't a justification.....merely a rationalization.

en.wikisource.org...

A link that is contained within the previous link I have provided....I just wanted to make sure that the promotion was there......

I regret little time, however, I enjoy talking on this matter....

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I think the problem may that we are generalizing the entire educational process.

That would be hitting the nail right on it's head. Through the generalization of the educational process, the needs of countless children are being swept under the rug.

This is a bit of a sticky subject though. I do believe that children should not be held back in their studies due to another child's behaviour, but I can not accept leaving children behind.

I believe that with better preparation on behalf of the educators themselves, we could introduce reinforcement over punishment.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Yet little is said regarding how students should be taught. We hear everything about more funding, more teachers (or smaller classroom size), and blah, blah, blah.......

Nobody seems too eager on tackling the crux of the problem. Schools with twice the funding of other schools, still have the same problems. Funding, class size, teachers, etc., are all just variables in the equation. Everyone is willing to attack the variables, but fail to take on the equation for what it really is.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Which takes me to your topic, chissler....

Ohh.. Where have we been?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Too many variables for an actual discourse on the status of our educational system in a political forum.....but maybe perfect for a discourse on ATS....

Agreed.

Teaching a child that makes straight A's proves what? You are just another piece of the puzzle for this child who may be onto something much greater than any of us can imagine. People who get into teaching, to teach these children, are in it for the wrong reasons.

Kids who struggle are where our teachers can make a difference. Kids will not admit their failure, allowing them to spiral into a cycle of deviant behaviour, is a discredit to the educator. We need to become aware of these children before they can enter this cycle, and rather than punish, offer incentives.

Again though, it is a sticky situation. I wish to emphasize on their needs and allow them to receive an education, while not holding back other students. Our system is already geared on the slowest student in the class, which leaves other children bored.

Which brings us back to the complete generalization of the educational process.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
If a student acts in a manner that disrupts the ability of other students to ingest the information that is being presented, then the disruption has to be taken care of....better to have one missing term paper than a classroom full of missing term papers.....

Which isn't a justification.....merely a rationalization.

True, but why does our system allow this child to be tossed from the classroom setting and fail to learn anything? We teach the children that by misbehaving, they no longer have to attend class. Suspension? Expulsion? If your really bad, we'll give you a small vacation, hell maybe even a permanent vacation.

Children who misbehave should not be punished in this way. Again, I come back to reinforcement. It is naive to believe that every child can attain the expectations we set before them. Some will surpass, others will meet, while others struggle. Those that struggle, are we going to continue to condemn them at such a young age?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I regret little time, however, I enjoy talking on this matter....

As do I. I have not viewed the two links that you have provided, but I plan to when I get an opportunity. At that time, I'll respond with some thoughts on those.

Thank you for your response.

Teachers need to be able to do their job. If the kid acts up, sure there might be a root cause of it, but it doesn't matter. A mature kid doesn't act up, even if they get poor grades. This whole idea of "don't blame the student for their actions" is BS.

When I was in school, I didn't rebel because I wanted attention. I rebelled because I disliked members of the administration and disliked school policies. I created as much havoc as I could without getting in trouble, not because I wanted attention, but because I felt like being a trouble-maker. I was also at the top of my class and the SGA President. The "root cause" solution to behavioral problems is BS. Kids do what they want, because they want to, and there are no other reasons.

EDIT: Every child can meet the expectations. Public schools are teaching absolute garbage. The material has been dumbed down beyond reason. Kids are now learning in college what was taught in junior high a hundred years ago. Our public school system is an absolute joke.

[edit on 12/12/2006 by southern_cross3]

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Teachers need to be able to do their job.

Is the job of the teacher, to teach, a select few? No, I believe the job is to teach every child that he or she has in their class. Good and bad alike, all deserve an education. If a child misbehaves, placing them outside of the classroom is no answer to the equation. For years we have allowed this, and we do not permit every child to receive the education they deserve.

So yes, the teacher, needs to do their job. However, these bastard children are a part of their job. In my opinion, they are the biggest part of their job. ...My opinion.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
If the kid acts up, sure there might be a root cause of it, but it doesn't matter. A mature kid doesn't act up, even if they get poor grades. This whole idea of "don't blame the student for their actions" is BS.

Fully admit that I come off as Don't blame the kid for their actions, but it is not my intention. My intentions are that children should be held accountable for their actions. However, it is the manner that we hold them accountable. Does accountability equate to missing out on an education?

Accountability should be ensuring that they work even harder to attain the education they so desperately need. Accountability, in my opinion, means admitting their failure and working harder in order to succeed.

The accountability our education system has been issuing so far is merely creating a breed of children who are poorly educated, due to actions at an age we are not even comprehending.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Kids do what they want, because they want to, and there are no other reasons.

Bit of a general statement? I fully see where you come from, and you are precisely correct. Correct for your own experience though. We can speak for our own behaviour, and our own behaviour only. We can not deny the existence of any reasoning for any action.

Many kids do act out to retrieve attention. Attention that they are starved for. This may not be true for yourself, but to say it is not true for others, is flawed.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Every child can meet the expectations.

You honestly believe that? You honestly meet that our system is geared for 100% success? Our system is not geared for children to fail?

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Public schools are teaching absolute garbage. The material has been dumbed down beyond reason. Kids are now learning in college what was taught in junior high a hundred years ago. Our public school system is an absolute joke.

How do we know what was taught in junior high school a hundred years ago?

I am fairly certain that different school boards may have different curriculums. So to say every school is an absolute joke, and every schools material is dumbed down, is too generalized in itself.

I do agree. The material can be more condensed for the elite, and should be. But others should not be left in the dark. And in the dark is where they are being left through our punishment over rehabilitation system.

The system is based on a Group philosophy. We compare each child to every other child, and determine their success on how they compare to those around them. If we would take a Singular approach, and measure each child's success on their own merit, we may see more productive numbers on a broader scale.

I openly admit that our education systems can not afford this sort of plan. Where each student has their success measured over the progress of a year, but it is a much more ideal scenario for our children to prosper.

If a child begins the year at around a 30% success rate, and finishes the year around a 60%, is this not a success? Compared to the child who makes a 95%, we would say no. Any child who doubles their output in a semester deserved to be applauded, regardless of where they conclude.

There is nothing wrong with trying to create an idealized society through the education of the populaces youth - but given the fact that not everyone is going to live up to the "ideal citizen" based purely on education - why do we spend so much time trying to make reach out and model students out of children who have repeatedly shown themselves to be uninterested in the prospect of advancing themselves mentally or physically?

It's a sad fact of social darwinism, but there are probably better things to do than try to educate an unwilling entity.

But then again - I'm bordering on a rather fascist elitism, so feel free to dismiss the fact that I could really give less than a care about people who don't want to contribute to the betterment of themselves, or the community.

Oops - sorry, I learned that mentality from Public School.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by GENERAL EYES]

That's alright General, it's just plain truth as I see it. No single individual, nor the 'state', owes any child an education. They owe the opportunity and the resources to obtain that education.

Parents owe the children their education. Parents owe the children the inspiration, the curiosity, and the understanding that higher education is important on so many levels. Parents owe their children the discipline to be able to sit through class, respectively and unquarrelsome.

Schools should not be the babysitter, surrogate parents that they have become. If your kid acts up, he gets booted. If he acts up again, he gets booted. If he gets booted enough times, he fails. Simple. Discipline is the parents responsibility, period. Their are resources for parenting that are readily available. In fact, they are abundant.

The problem IMO(not a problem really, but a cause) is our empathy, and compassion. Noone wants to see these children fail, fall behind, and eventually lose hope of tremendous success, plus capitalism inherently supporting a state parental position has empowered the schools to 'parent' these children.

I suppose it's a battle of philosophy. (If only to be king.)

Originally posted by nextguyinline
No single individual, nor the 'state', owes any child an education.

We seem to disagree on this.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Parents owe their children the discipline to be able to sit through class, respectively and unquarrelsome.

Can we agree that it is naive to believe a young child can be disciplined, respectful, and unquarrelsome? Children misbehave, everywhere in society we deal with them. But we permit our educators to sweep them under the rug. It is much easier to stigmatize a child and allow them to implode, than it is to deal with the issues and try to save the future this child may hold.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Schools should not be the babysitter

I'm not asking the educators to be a babysitter. I am asking them to be the role models they are expected. I am asking them to reinforce a positive behaviour rather than punishing a negative behaviour. We need to remember that we do not have a class room filled with thirty little soldiers. To some extent, at one time or another, teachers are babysitters. Whether we wish to admit that or not, it is a fact.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
f your kid acts up, he gets booted. If he acts up again, he gets booted. If he gets booted enough times, he fails. Simple.

Exactly. You are only reinforcing the point I am trying to debate. Why does a child need to be booted? Metaphorically speaking of course. Why do we need to punish the child? Why can we not instill a system where we use reinforcement with the children?

If a child is pushed down over and over again, they are going to crumble. Rather than pushing the child down, why don't we make an effort to pull them from the darkness they are living?

Reinforcement over punishment.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Discipline is the parents responsibility, period.

Agreed. Which is another reason why I feel our education system should be based on one of reinforcement.

Another aspect that supports my initial statement.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Their are resources for parenting that are readily available. In fact, they are abundant.

I believe our demographics would determine this statement.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
The problem IMO(not a problem really, but a cause) is our empathy, and compassion.

I like the fact you clarified on the cause/problem wording. It certainly is not a problem, and quite clearly is a cause. But I propose the following question:

Is it a positive or a negative?

I firmly believe it is a positive, as the children deserve our empathy and our compassion.

It is a matter of expectations. We need to place realistic expectations before the children. Not every child is going to be a doctor, politician, lawyer, etc., and that is not a bad thing. We need construction workers, custodians, etc., to sustain.

Do we all need to become the President in order to achieve success?

So why are all children placed unrealistic expectations? Every child deserves an education, every child deserves the right to learn and prosper. But not every child should be measured on the same scale of success.

Singular mentality would get us much farther than our current Group mentality.

There is really no point in arguing arguments that both end in better education. Am I correct in assuming that, and attempting to clarify, that you feel the public school system should bear the role of social education as well as (and I've yet to find a word to sum this up) factual?..education, i.e. reading, writing, etc.; and I feel the social education should be left out of the school system, and approached from outside sources, leaving the (factual?) education to the school system?

Frankly, IMO, the mass majority of students whom are disclipined with suspensions and expulsions, don't see it as a punishment, so with all due respect, I don't think these children reap the action/punishment effects you may believe. Denying them the education, in the same time as their counterparts, is really what the punishment is, and truly, only adults really understand that.

I guess I should also clarify, that I speak more from a 9-18 age parameter. Toddlers and tykes are exceptions to expectations of children attending a learning institution. There is a line somewhere in the curriculum, that lies between, painting between the lines, and adding and subtracting, where prior to that line, disruptive behavior is acceptable, and post, disruptive behavior is not acceptable.

I think one reason parents are pushing their children to the extremes these days, and subsequentially our educators, is that they're more worried about what the quality of life is going to be like when they come of retirement age.

They place the burden of improving the world on the shoulders of their children, and deny them their childhoods, personal dreams and so forth in an attempt to mold them into sustainers of the proverbial kingdom.

After all, the yuppies of the 1980's are the ones really pushing this agenda, and they've been social climbing for years. Now they pass that paranoia and stress level on to their unwitting children but times have changed.

I agree we shold focus more on the parent-child relationship, and move on to school as being a place for socialization as opposed to purely education.

We're creating one sided, one track minds.

Maybe it's a generational thing, I can't say for sure - but it's very selfishly motivated.

The majority of the young professionals I've met are so jaded about their lack of childhood and isolation from the trials of the real world, the excessive materialim of their parents and the blatant over coddling they've been raised with is just putting out a generation of disaffected, resentful, rude (alibet intelligent) citizens with little to no respect for others opinions and positions - since they themselves were never granted that courtesy.

Schools today are pushing 3rd graders to extremes for the sake of this agenda.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by GENERAL EYES]

Originally posted by nextguyinline
There is really no point in arguing arguments that both end in better education.

But the point I am pursuing is that every child deserves the education. Yes, with your argument children are going to receive an education. But others are missing out on this opportunity, for a behaviour that they can not comprehend.

In regards to your quote above, I do have one question to ask.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
No single individual, nor the 'state', owes any child an education. They owe the opportunity and the resources to obtain that education.

We live in the Western world. A civilized society, right? So if we are going to reap all of these benefits, yet fail to education our children, what is the purpose of our development?

Our ability to educate our young is what separates the Western World from the First World.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Am I correct in assuming that, and attempting to clarify, that you feel the public school system should bear the role of social education as well as (and I've yet to find a word to sum this up) factual?..education, i.e. reading, writing, etc.; and I feel the social education should be left out of the school system, and approached from outside sources, leaving the (factual?) education to the school system?

In today's society, too often, both parents are forced to work full time jobs. Which has created a new breed of Latchkey children. If the education system is not going to step up and teach these children in every aspect, where is this going to leave them?

Sure, some of us may be lucky enough to be able to stay at home with our children. If and when I do become a parent, at this point in time, it appears that my girlfriend and I will both be out of the home working. Teaching our child is something we will do our damnedest to assist in, but the truth is, we are going to depend on the education system to teach the child a lot of what he or she needs.

In an ideal world, the parents themselves would be capable of taking on this role. But in our materialistic world, both parents are required to work. The child should not suffer for this. If the education system is not going to educate, who is?

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Frankly, IMO, the mass majority of students whom are disclipined with suspensions and expulsions, don't see it as a punishment, so with all due respect, I don't think these children reap the action/punishment effects you may believe.

I believe your missing my point. The punishment carries nothing with it. It is a tool of sweeping the problem under the rug, to permit other children to carry on with their education. What I am asking, is that we assume a role of reinforcement.

Reinforcement would instill incentives for the children on good behaviour. If a child misbehaves in class and shows no interest in their studies, rather than punishing, talk to the child and see what he or she deems important. For the sake of discussion, let's say Internet time is something this child really enjoys. At home he/she does not have a computer, so the one or two hours a week they are given on the computer, they really enjoy.

Well, as reinforcement, we can tell the child if they behave in class, we will offer extra hours of internet time for the child.

Teachers win, Child Wins, System wins, and Society wins.

You are right though, children do not understand the extent of their punishment when they are suspended. Suspensions are supposed to deter kids from a behaviour, but in my opinion, it acts as an incentive in itself as a vacation.

Children need to see something material in front of them. What is the point of behaving? I fail in class, the teacher does not like me, they throw me out of class, why should I bother?

Well, work hard and do behave, and we will give you extra time on the computer at the end of the day.

Very realistic and would take little effort at all.

Reinforcement over punishment.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Denying them the education, in the same time as their counterparts, is really what the punishment is, and truly, only adults really understand that.

Which is the problem in itself. It is the children, not the adults, that need to understand the consequences. Children do not understand the punishment, which is only going to lead to more of the same behaviour.

By reinforcing a positive behaviour, we are actually making an effort to stop the negative behaviour and increase a positive behaviour.

A child is not going to understand the consequences of a suspension, but they will understand the little effort they need to put forth in order to receive extra time on the computer.

Teaching our child is something we will do our damnedest to assist in, but the truth is, we are going to depend on the education system to teach the child a lot of what he or she needs.

So you don't forsee the possible alternative of home schooling as an option?

Given that your children are of the right temperment, it's entirely feasible that once they reach an appropriate age to leave them at home (with parental locks on the television to discourage anything other than educational viewing, as well as the same precautions on the computer) that you could effectively create a personal learning environment at home without having to worry too much about all the problems of the current system. And luckily, these options are becoming more and more readily available as technology becomes more accessable.

I was a latch key kid, and it taught me a great amount of self-reliance.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by GENERAL EYES]

Chissler, I understand where your coming from. We just disagree on whom bears the responsibility for assuring the education of children.

Children whom are 'booted' from the classroom for disruptive behavior are not denied their education. I'm not sure why you, think this. These children come back. If not after a few minutes, then the next day, or the next year in the case of expulsions. Of course these children have a societal right, giving to them by us, to recieve an education. But, we don't give these children the right to disrupt, delay, and discourage the learning of the others, because of their behaviors.

If your childs (hypothetically) education was being stemmed because my child was a continual disturbance in class, you would be upset. I would remove my child from that class, until I could discipline him/her enough to not be disruptive. I don't expect the teacher the take time away from the other children, to discipline, and/or parent my child.

Maybe having two working parents is a fundamental mistake in the raising of children? Can you really justify the lack of parenting to your children for a dollar? Those that are forced to have both parents working are an exception, and is a whole other topic.

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
So you don't forsee the possible alternative of home schooling as an option?

Home schooling works for some, but personally, I would try to avoid it at all costs. The social aspect of school, positive or negative, can not be measured. In respects to Latchkey children, and home schooling, I believe it is tough to say what the future holds for home schooling as an option.

I do believe that at our current stage, the majority of parents are required to hold down full time jobs, which severely limits their opportunity with their children.

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Given that your children are of the right temperment, it's entirely feasible that once they reach an appropriate age to leave them at home (with parental locks on the television to discourage anything other than educational viewing, as well as the same precautions on the computer) that you could effectively create a personal learning environment at home without having to worry too much about all the problems of the current system. And luckily, these options are becoming more and more readily available as technology becomes more accessable.

A fellow optimist, I love it.

Sure, it is feasible. But it is not likely to be accomplished on a regular basis. The social skills they are going to miss out on are irreplaceable.

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
I was a latch key kid, and it taught me a great amount of self-reliance.

Many do overcome, but many do not. I am glad to hear of your success story, it is not one we should take lightly, as it is a great accomplishment. But many who have traveled your path, have not been so fortunate.

nextguyinline, I direct you to my quote above.

Originally posted by chissler
This is a bit of a sticky subject though. I do believe that children should not be held back in their studies due to another child's behaviour, but I can not accept leaving children behind.

Every child deserves an education, and no child has the right to invoke on another's education. If a child misbehaves, he or she needs to be dealt with immediately. They need to be accountable for their actions.

I do not condone children interfering on other children's education.

The crux of this issue rests on the premise that through reinforcement, we can offer every child the same opportunities.

nextguyinline, Yes these children do come back to class. They do come back and are given the opportunity to learn. But, they come back under the light of a troublemaker. They have been laughed at by their peers, which they view as a positive. FINALLY! a positive! Someone is looking at me and smiling they think. Why the hell would they stop behaving in this manner?

The other kids love me for acting out like this.

It is not an easy task to shake a stigma.



[edit on 13-12-2006 by chissler]

So tell me Chissler, when a child is disruptive, what does the teacher in that classroom supposed to do? What reinforcing energy does he/she need to apply in this situation? If you agree that child does not have the right to disrupt other children, then that child MUST leave the environment. Is it from this point where the reinforcement discipline comes in? Do we need to spend more money, to staff qualified individuals to take the disruptive childs missing class time, and use it for this reinforcement?

I'm quite confused Chissler. I understand what you want to do, I just don't have an idea on how that idea would implemented. So a teacher tells a student that if he behaves, he can spend extra time on the computer after class? What if the student still disbehaves, even after multiple positive reinforcement?

Regardless of how it is implemented, it takes resources, and time away from the other children, and their parents. I'm sorry, but I do not want to pay for someone else to parent your children; wether it's my tax dollars to fund the staff, or the educational expense of my children.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
What reinforcing energy does he/she need to apply in this situation? If you agree that child does not have the right to disrupt other children, then that child MUST leave the environment.

Yes, the child must leave the environment. As I have said time and time again, no child has the right to intervene on another child's education. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But it is the lack of emphasis placed on this action where the problem lies. It acts as a small punishment, which in the end, proves nothing.

If we were to harness our efforts and reinforce certain behaviours, in the future, we may be able to limit these infractions in the class room.

What I speak of is, taking a disruptive child aside, and talking to them as an individual. It is important that we talk to the child on one level. A condescending tone is completely unnecessary, and is only going to act as a detriment to the situation.

The educators role is not to act as a superior, which is what happens today. The costs for such a plan would not be light, as we would need extra staff to facilitate these demands. But what we would do is talk to the children on their level, and actually try to figure out where this behaviour comes from. Rather than punishing, let's try to understand and rehabilitate.

These kids are not hardened criminals. They are small, young, weak minds that are easily impressionable. With the right efforts, we may take a future inmate into a police officer.

So the children would not be interfering with his or her classmates.

I do make it clear that children need to be accountable for their actions, and I do not ask the teachers to ignore their deviant behaviour. However, rather than pointing to the door, we can try to understand where this is coming from.

If I am unclear on anything, feel free to ask. I feel strong about this concept and I am enjoying our discussion on it.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Is it from this point where the reinforcement discipline comes in? Do we need to spend more money, to staff qualified individuals to take the disruptive childs missing class time, and use it for this reinforcement?

Without a doubt we would need to spend more money and train qualified individuals. Which is the main reason we do not enforce this standard today, in my opinion. I believe our system is geared at the most cost efficient way of providing as many kids as possible, a basic education.

When MemoryShock spoke of the generalization of our education system, I believe I have never heard it explained so well.

And since we are dealing with kids who have misbehaved, who are normally sent to detention, time after school is more than available to discuss these issues with the child. Which would not take time away from the child and their studies. They are not tossed from the class room setting without looking back, they are directed to the open arms of another individual who is looking to understand why they are behaving in this manner.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I understand what you want to do, I just don't have an idea on how that idea would implemented.

I've attempted to answer some of your questions above, have I had any success? It is quite clear for myself, but expressing it to others can be a challenge at times. My effort is not to take away from class time, and it is to remove the stigma we place on children who are starved for attention.

Feel free to ask any questions on my stance. Even if they are repetitive, I enjoy discussing it.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
So a teacher tells a student that if he behaves, he can spend extra time on the computer after class? What if the student still disbehaves, even after multiple positive reinforcement?

Then it becomes apparent that internet time is not the proper incentive. And at that point we would search for another incentive to offer the child. Every child wants something, hell everyone wants something, it is just a matter of finding the right one.

I'm not saying every child will buy into this. A time will come when we will of made every effort possible to assist a child, and they will continue to spit in our face. At that point, it may be time to allow this child to run his own path. But it would not be a light decision, and it would not be made until we had made every opportunity to find some common ground.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Regardless of how it is implemented, it takes resources, and time away from the other children, and their parents.

I disagree. With the extra staff that we would of trained and hired, their main objectives would be to deal with these children. The only time and resources that are going to be expended are those of the child, the child's parents, and the workers themselves. The teacher would be involved to a degree, and should be updated on all progress. Other children would not need to be informed, and the parents of other children would be clueless to the events as well.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I'm sorry, but I do not want to pay for someone else to parent your children; wether it's my tax dollars to fund the staff, or the educational expense of my children.

And there it is. The kryptonite of my argument. A lot of extra funding would be required to support this agenda, which the populations are not going to be willing to foot. Which is why our schools are based on the group mentality. Children are compared to one another, rather than measuring the progress of each child. The group mentality is a much more cost efficient plan, and it does keep those on top happy.

Thanks Chissler, all is clear now.

Giving a child what he wants, to influence appropriate behaviour, has been proven to be detrimental in the long run. I don't have any links, or library references to studies on that matter, all I have is the testimony of parents and experience with children who are raised with this philosophy. (and personal childhood experience)

One of the most important lessons IMO that can be given to a child, is that sometimes, if not more often, other peoples wishes are more important than ones' own. The children's desire, and the desire of their parents to learn while in the classroom, or just those childrens' desire to get through the class undisruptively till lunch, or whatever, is more iimportant than a disruptive child's want of time on the internet, or his want of whatever.

:edit: to add; removal of disruptive children from the classroom in itself, is not a punishment, IMO. Just a problem solving solution. The punishment is really felt by the parents, because of what I mentioned before, but also, because now that parent has to make efforts to take care of the child, who should be in class. It's the parents whom have to leave work, or whatever, to take care of the disruptive child.

Dentention, is a punishment. Homework assignments can be punishment. Removal from the classroom, is a solution.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by nextguyinline]

I wish to make it clear that I am not talking about being coercive with the child. The child needs to make the decisions for themselves, I merely talk of the incentive to enhance a possible behaviour. Over time when the behaviour becomes habitual, you would slowly ween the child off of the incentives.

I agree that negative aspects do exist, but they are far outweighed by the positives.

Incentives are derived from a want. Children rarely want what we would like them to want, especially at younger ages. There is truly only one incentive IMO, that children will strive for that is not a want. It's an unwant; don't want to be grounded, don't want to have priviledges taken away. These are the things that motivate children. Unfortunately, they fall under the 'negative' reinforcement title, but thems the breaks, and they soon grow to a maturity of mind, to understand what is important for life, and to follow their own positive reinforcing actions.

We don't always get what we want in life. To teach a child otherwise, would really be unfair.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
We don't always get what we want in life. To teach a child otherwise, would really be unfair.

I agree. But my theory is trying to teach:

"Wanting what you get, Not, Getting what you want"

Life is not fair, and things do not always work out the way we plan. But making the best of what you have in front of you is always the best formula. And, in my opinion, this works hand in hand with my Reinforcement over Punishment thinking.