ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, September 23, 1996 TAG: 9609230022
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MICHELLE MALKIN
WHAT EVER happened to being good for goodness' sake?
Last week, Seattle Schools Superintendent John Stanford proposed credits of $100 per month to every high-school class that avoids violence. Ten months of nonviolence would earn a class $1,000 to be spent on a collective project of the students' choosing. A similar scheme, offering $50 in monthly credits or $500 per year, would be in effect for every middle-school class in the district.
The total bill for total peace would come to $75,000 - a ``drop in the bucket,'' Stanford said in a recent interview, compared with legal fees associated with violent behavior. The program would be paid by transferring funds from the district's liability-claims budget.
Stanford hopes that the idea of losing the money will motivate students to approach other classmates and counsel them against violence. But the per-student incentive - it works out to 15 cents per month per middle-school students and 46 cents per month per high-school student - is ridiculously small given the risks. Would you intervene between two hulking thugs for a few extra pennies to be spread among thousands of peers at the end of the school year on some unknown class project?
Despite its shortcomings, this Kibbles 'n Bits approach to school discipline is all the rage across the country. Someone, somewhere, right now is treating students to an assortment of goodies for exceptional behavior that was once considered the expected norm:
* Working hard. In southern California, the ``Dollars for Scholars'' program awards weekly allowances to honor students. In Texas, children can rake in cold, hard cash for reading books. And in Florida, those with good grades win quarters and time off from class to play video games or pinball at an on-site ``motivational arcade.''
* Being good. In Phoenix public schools, students who exhibit ``trust, respect, and responsibility'' receive bicycles for appropriate behavior.
* Showing up consistently and on time. Texas school officials dole out monetary prizes to students with perfect attendance records. In one Florida public school, a principal rewards student punctuality with limousine rides to Burger King.
* Just showing up. In Connecticut, state education officials offered tickets to sporting events to encourage students to attend the first day of school.
Defenders of these kiddie payoffs call the schemes innovative and sensible alternatives to instilling inner discipline. Stanford believes it's a creative way to harness student peer pressure for the greater good. The superintendent of the Newport-Mesa School District in Orange County, Calif., which rewards top students with cash allowances, says the system ``moves students into a state of mind where they become self-actualized learners.'' School officials elsewhere explain that this is a real-life application of how bonuses and incentives are used in the workplace.
But some experts believe these behavioral experiments in the public schools may be harmful in the long run.
Michael Martinez, acting chairman of the University of California at Irvine's education department, cites educational psychology research showing that children whose parents rewarded good grades with toys or money didn't do as well academically as those whose parents simply encouraged the child's interest in school or took time to provide help with school work.
``If a student is being paid for an activity, there is the risk that once that reward is removed, that may cause the student to enjoy the work less or do poorly,'' Martinez told the Los Angeles Times recently.
Moreover, sociologist Barbara Coloroso notes in her 1994 book, ``Kids Are Worth It: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline'': ``Kids who are consistently bribed and rewarded are likely to grow into adults who are overly dependent on others for approval and recognition, lacking their own self-confidence and sense of responsibility.''
One mother who objects to giving out prizes for good behavior told Coloroso: ``The way we choose to motivate people says a great deal about how we feel about them. When we have faith in someone and respect for the task, enticing them with treats becomes unnecessary. This `treat for tricks' technique may work well for animal trainers, but I doubt it serves us well in raising a future generation of thinkers and problem-solvers.''
Those who believe the treats-for-tricks system mirrors real life are kidding themselves and the students they regale. In real life, there are no rewards for just showing up. The boss doesn't dole out cash prizes to self-actualized employees who refrain from insulting him. The government doesn't throw roller-skating parties for citizens who simply keep the peace and obey the laws.
Stanford, a retired general who has declared a zero-tolerance policy on campus violence, has some good ideas for restoring order in the Seattle School District. But paying kids to keep the peace isn't one of them. Elevating ordinary behavior as extraordinary means elevating deviant behavior as ordinary. Upping the ante on rewards for mere civility means lowering overall standards and expectations.
Wise disciplinarians will continue to insist, as Henry David Thoreau did, that ``Goodness is the only investment that never fails.'' It's not glitzy; the payoffs are intangible; it's not as fun as playing Daddy Warbucks. But it's free, time-tested, and far more responsible than treating young people like stunted moral puppies incapable of appreciating peace, excellence, or virtue as its own reward.
Michelle Malkin is an editorial writer and columnist at The Seattle Times.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune
LENGTH: Long : 101 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: ANTHONY D'ADAMO/ Newsdayby CNB