Grading And Reward [Archive] - The Good News Café

Jim

05-02-2003, 10:58 AM

A Plan for Elementary Education by Parents

As a home educating parent, your goal is NOT to bring what is being done in schools into your home (regardless of whether the schools are run by the government, religious groups, or other private entities). The school approach is fatally flawed and is not God¡¦s plan for educating children, so let¡¦s just forget it. It is not the only way to educate a child, and it is, in fact, not a very effective way.

I. The Initial Objectives

Reading is the single most important component of home education. Because of this, the initial objective of home education is to foster a love for reading and learning. This is done by making all early reading and learning experiences fun (fun is a high priority for little children). Both parents should begin reading to a child on a daily basis around the time a child is one year old. Between the ages of one and five, you cannot read to a child too much.

At the age of two or three most children can begin learning letters and numbers. The purpose of these basic building blocks of education is to equip the child to be able to read and do math, which will ultimately enable the child to seek understanding.

Many children can begin learning to read for themselves between the ages of three and six. By the time a child is six he or she should be able to read at a beginning level.

As a child begins to read with comprehension on his own, the parents can reduce the amount of reading they provide for the child. It should not be eliminated completely, however, until the child is nine or ten. It may be desirable to read together as a family for other reasons even when children are older, but it is not a necessary component in the reading development of the child past these ages.

Usually a reading curriculum is not necessary to teach a child to read, but if it seems necessary or desirable, we recommend Sing, Spell, Read and Write (Please disregard the instructions to bribe children with toy trinkets in Sing, Spell, Read and Write). Older children can and should help teach younger children to learn reading.

For the first couple of years, children should be allowed to read primarily what they enjoy (within certain limits). If they start a book and are not enjoying it, they should not be required to finish it. They can instead be helped in selecting another book. The idea is to enable children to become excellent readers without destroying their love for reading.

Parental oversight of a child¡¦s reading should be established right from the start. Children can be granted choices in reading, but only within the sphere of parental oversight. Parents should look over and evaluate ALL books prior to approving them.
Around the age of 3 to 6 children can begin learning basic math. A curriculum may be helpful in teaching math, but it is important that parents DO NOT give children grades on their progress.1 A test should be used only to determine whether or not a child has mastered the work and to help decide what the teacher and student should work on next. All incorrect answers on a test should be reviewed with the child until the child understands why he did not arrive at the correct answer. Correct answers should also be reviewed to determine that the child understands how he arrived at his answer. In other words, the child should understand all the material on each test before moving ahead. (Consider this: If it is okay to get a problem wrong, then why is the child being tested on it in the first place?)

Parents should be careful not to foster a 9:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, learning mentality. They should rather foster the idea that learning is an ongoing experience that takes place all day, every day. As finite human beings, we must always be learning and growing.

1. For an excellent explanation as to why children should not receive grades, read ¡§From Degrading to De-grading¡¨ by Alfie Kohn.http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/fdtd-g.htm

II. Elements of a Home Education Plan

The purpose of the child¡¦s education should be defined by the family working together until they have a very clear concise written purpose which the parents and child both understand and believe is important to the child¡¦s future. The education purpose then becomes the standard for evaluating everything in the education process. ¡§Is what we are doing helping us move closer to our purpose or not?¡¨

1. Define the purpose.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

2. State what we hope to accomplish (specific objectives we believe will move us toward our purpose)
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

3. Note what we have, what has been given (information, resources, structure, limits....).
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

4. Plan our strategies.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

5. Decide on our starting point.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

6. Determine the rules and guidelines that will govern our activities.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

7. Devise a way to check our work to be sure that we have attained our purpose.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

III. A Basic Approach to Home Education

1. A subject or topic is selected for study only when the family believes it will help move toward the educational purpose. This may originate with the child (based on current interests) or it may originate with the parents (based on observed needs or other determinations). Both the father and
mother should drive this part of the process by discussing and deciding upon specific areas of study with the children. It may be helpful to maintain a list of areas to be studied and the reasons each is related to achieving your educational purpose. It is also useful to decide which
subjects are not useful in moving toward your educational purpose.

2. A book (or books) is selected which is relevant to the subject selected for study. Books can be purchased, borrowed, or obtained at a library. In some cases an encyclopedia may be appropriate. The Internet may also be used as a source of information.

3. For younger children, a parent may need to read the book to the child. As a child learns to read, however, he should do most of the reading himself, the parent being available to answer the child¡¦s questions. It is very important that the parent ask the child questions that will help him understand the context and meaning of the subject matter the child is considering. Some examples of questions that can help the learner establish context and meaning are:

What do you think the problem is?

What would you like to learn?

What do you know from the information given to you?

Stop and look carefully at what you¡¦re doing.

Let¡¦s make a plan so we don¡¦t miss anything.

When have you done something like this before?

Yes, that¡¦s right, but how did you know it was right?

Where have you done that before to help you solve a problem?

How can we break this down into smaller steps ÈÎits pretty big this way.

What is one thing you could do now to get started?

What do you need to do next?

How can we find out?

Can you think of a better way to do this?

Tell me how you did that.

Jim

05-02-2003, 10:59 AM

5. After studying a subject, the child should be asked to either tell about the subject (for young children) or write about it. As the child grows, the level of writing should be increased appropriately. The purpose of the report is to help the child understand the meaning of the material he has been reading. A useful method for reporting is to ask the child to teach the meaning of the material to the person receiving the report (one of the most effective methods for learning is to teach someone else about the material you are trying to learn).

6. After a paper has been completed, the child must self-evaluate their work using a written criteria that allows them to understand good quality work. Parents should then review the paper using the same written criteria and help the child if the work is not meeting the criteria. (A criteria for a written report might include the following: all words spelled correctly, all facts or statements are accurate, all handwriting is neat and clear, sentence structure is grammatically correct, key points of the paper are presented in a logical sequence). Parents should ask the child to evaluate how the paper might have been better, how it could have been more interesting, and what other facts the child might have considered. This self-evaluation should be used to formulate a strategy to improve the next report.
7. The child then rewrites the paper correcting all deficiencies and self-evaluates the new report. The parent and child then review the report using the criteria, noting any other corrections. The child should improve the paper until it meets the criteria.

8. This same basic approach should be used when the study is done through a project, a field trip, or some combination of learning approaches.

9. Other key elements of home education include prayer time; quiet time for mom; doing household chores; receiving an allowance and taking responsibility for how it is used; reading, studying, and thinking about the Bible (especially the book of Proverbs); and participating in a home education co-op.

As children grow, an increasing amount of time should be given to independent reading and writing (or doing projects and writing about them). Most of the time these tasks can be done without much parental involvement. This means that the parents will have time for other household responsibilities as the children read and write on their own. The most time consuming part of the process will be selecting subject matter for study, providing assistance as needed, and evaluating and correcting the work. Also, as children get older, a part of the learning process can be teaching younger siblings to read and write and do numbers.

Keep in mind that children do not need to be kept busy all day long in a structured learning process. As children get older (9 or 10), they need to learn to have quiet time each day to reflect on what they are learning. They also need time to explore ideas and subjects spontaneously during the course of a day.

IV. The Father¡¦s Role in Home Education.

When a father is working to support his family, the mother will of necessity be spending more time in the tasks relating to educating the children. But it is a serious mistake for the father to ¡§dump the whole thing on mom¡¨ and have no involvement. The father¡¦s involvement does not
have to consume a lot of time, but to maximize the children¡¦s education and avoid overwhelming the mother, he must be involved as leader of the educational process.

The father¡¦s involvement must include the following:

1. Overseeing the entire education process, guiding the understanding of the purpose of education in the family, staying aware of the processes used for learning and what subject matter content the children are studying, and participating in the selection of study materials.

2. Supporting the mother in her daily tasks, which includes asking how things are going; taking the lead role in disciplinary matters and supporting the mother¡¦s disciplinary decisions; deciding on relevant subject matter for study together with the children; teaching the children by allowing them to participate with the father in various activities he is involved in; and by teaching the children in specific areas of expertise or interest.
3. Asking the children what they learned at end of each day and how their learning is moving them toward their educational purpose. This can take place at the dinner table, at bed time, or at some other designated time. This is the way home educated children should be tested. It is not a matter of answering a certain percentage of questions of a test paper; it is a matter of being able to tell in an understandable way about what they have learned and how their learning is related to purpose. If they can do this, they have learned.

Fathers who show no interest in the education of their children are seriously remise in their godly responsibilities as a parent. They are piling their responsibilities on their wives, which is both unfair and unkind. The Bible places the responsibility of educating children first and foremost on their fathers (see Deuteronomy 6:4-8).

V. The Difference Between the Father¡¦s and Mother¡¦s Roles

Proverbs 6:20-23 says, ¡§My son, keep your father¡¦s command, and do not forsake the law of your mother. Bind them continually upon your heart; tie them around your neck. When you roam, they will lead you; when you sleep, they will keep you; and when you awake, they will speak with you. For the commandment is a lamp, and the law a light; reproofs of instruction are the way of life....¡¨

The first appeal to the son in Proverbs 6 is an appeal to recognize the value of the counsel and direction given by a father and mother. This admonition demonstrates that the things most valuable are often found at home rather than in some distant, exotic place. The invitation is not to
find a ¡§holy man¡¨ or guru to follow, but to hear a father¡¦s instruction and a mother¡¦s law. The individual who turns away from the counsel offered by godly parents rejects one of the most valuable sources of wisdom and direction he will ever find.

The father is said to give commands, while the mother is said to give the law. Perhaps a distinction between the two can be made on the basis of Proverbs 6:23, which equates the commandments with a lamp and the law with light. A lamp is the source of light, an object that emits light. The light is the product of the lamp. In the family relationship, the father is responsible to give commandment ÈÎthe ultimate objective or purpose in view. The mother is to give the law ÈÎthe outworking of that purpose, the practical means by which the objective will be achieved.

The root meaning of the word ¡§commandment¡¨ (mitsvah) is to constitute. The word ¡§law¡¨ (torah) would be better translated as teaching. The root meaning of torah is to shoot at, to point out, or to teach. Therefore, we can think of the commandments as the Constitution that lays out the general purpose and structure of an organization, and law as the Bylaws, which specify how
the organization is to operate on a day to day basis.

For example, a father may say to his young son, ¡§I want your room clean when I get home tonight.¡¨ To enable the child to fulfill this task, the mother may say, ¡§Now the first thing to do is pick up your dirty clothes and put them in the hamper.¡¨ When that is accomplished, the mother may say, ¡§Now make your bed.¡¨ In this way, the child, led by his mother¡¦s law (or teaching), will accomplish his father¡¦s commandment.

Matthew 12:48-50 says, ¡§But He answered and said to the one who told Him, ¡¥¡¦Who is My mother and who are My brothers?¡¦ And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ¡¥¡¦Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.¡¦¡¨ Obviously not all children have godly parents whose counsel can
be relied upon. Therefore, Jesus lets us know that ultimately our family is our local assembly of believers, particularly those who are actually serving God and doing His will.

(Extracted in part from: Ancient Wisdom for Today¡¦s World by Daniel Segraves, (1990: Word Aflame Press, Hazelwood, MO), p.28-29.)

VI. Key Components of Home Education:

1. Purpose: Why are we doing this? What are we hoping to accomplish?
2. Prayer (for and with children).
3. Bible study.
4. Participation of Dad (oversight, purpose, support, and evaluation by
purpose).
5. Math (using curriculum).
6. Subject matter selection according to purpose (as opposed to traditions or purely random).
7. Reading (and being read to).
8. Writing (and/or telling).
9. Evaluating and correcting writing using criteria for spelling, grammar, factual
accuracy, style, and handwriting.
10. Projects.
11. Field trips.
12. Household chores.
13. Managing money (allowance and payments for special household work).
14. Co-op participation and study.
15. Quiet time during the day for Mom.
16. Creating and operating a small business or service projects.

Jim

05-02-2003, 10:59 AM

Reward and Incentive Programs are Ineffective -- Even Harmful

Peter R. Scholtes

Mr. Scholtes is principal author of The Team Handbook. He was an instructor in Dr. W. Edwards Deming's seminars for six years. He operates a consulting and seminar business based in Madison, Wisconsin.

My friend Dave from Indianapolis was upset. His daughter Emily had been a good student, an avid reader ... that is until Pizza Hut got into the reward business. It seems Pizza Hut provided teachers with coupons for free pizzas to be awarded to a student when he or she had completed a book. Dave's daughter started readingshorter and less challenging books or just skimmed longer books, so she could get more coupons.

Meanwhile, Emily's classmates also started reading more books. Even those who were not readers started reading. The books they read were short and simple, but at least these kids were reading something. The students who, like Emily, were avid readers, switched their reading preference to short, simple books. Eventually, however, Pizza Hut's reading-for-pizzas campaign ended; and so did the reading ... all reading ... by those who used to be avid readers of challenging books as well as by those who didn't read.

"What my wife and I unwittingly allowed Pizza Hut to do," said Dave, "was substitute their external motivation for our daughter's internal motivation. They replaced her reason for reading and then eventually removed their substitute reason." With pizza coupons no longer available, the kids in the class felt that there was no longer a reason to read.

This story -- a true incident -- demonstrates the fallacy of all incentive programs. Research on rewards, merit and incentive pay programs, etc., shows them to be ineffective and -- as in Emily's case -- even harmful.

To many this will come as a shock. Reward, incentive, motivational and merit programs are sincere, well-intentioned efforts to recognize the good that people do. How could they be the wrong thing to do? How could they be ineffective and even harmful! To read more about this from a valuable resource, with a wealth of rigorous documentation, read Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. I am indebted to Alfie for much of what I write here.

What's wrong with reward, recognition, and incentive systems?

First, they don't work There are no credible data to show that any long-term benefit results from such programs. There are data, however, that show that they do harm.

They often set up a form of internal competition in which people strive to look good and look better than their fellow employees. Sometimes looking good becomes more important than doing well.

People pass problems on to others elsewhere and later in the system. "Don't let the problem appear to happen on my watch."
People will circumvent the system for personal gain, causing havoc to the system.
People will strive to look good even when it may hurt the customers. Sears auto-service personnel -- in order to meet their monthly profit quotas - provided unnecessary repairs and replaced perfectly good parts. The customers paid dearly so that the repair shops could look good.

The reward programs undermine teamwork and cooperation Employees -- or groups of employees -- competing for a prize (merit pay, contests, rewards, etc.) will regard each other as adversaries. They will act as though they are not part of the same organization, working for common goals, serving the customers together. Instead, they may try to subvert each others' efforts.

Recognition and merit programs often reward those who are lucky and pass by those who are unlucky Far and away the biggest single factor that determines output is the system and its capability. The systems capability is independent of the people doing the work.

If everyone in your company did his or her best, day in and day out, you would affect only a negligible proportion of your current quality or productivity problems. Most of your problems are built right into the system. Those who get rewards are those who are lucky enough to work in a system with fewer inherent problems. (The machines work well, the materials are appropriate, the training is good, the policies promote a good work environment, the methods of work are well tested and perfected, etc.) Those who don't get the rewards are -- by and large -- those unlucky enough to work in dysfunctional systems.

Merit and reward systems create cynics and losers In one Milwaukee company, which had an annual "Employee-of-the-Year" award ceremony, I had an opportunity to meet with the year's winner. I was surprised to learn that she was not proud of her award. She was embarrassed by it. She saw the whole ceremony,
with all its hoopla and pizzazz, as an occasion invented by managers, so that they could pose as "employee-sensitive." She had two reasons for her cynicism:

There were plenty of employees whom she felt deserved recognition as much as or more than she did. She was convinced that the honor was bestowed on her because her boss was the CEO's favorite. The selection process oozed of internal politics. Secondly, she said, "If we were treated with respect and decency on a daily basis, I would not be so skeptical of the sincerity behind this event. On one day a year, management honors its employees. On all the other days, we are treated like objects of utility."

The greatest management conceit is that we can "motivate" people. We can't. Motivation is there, inside people. Our people were motivated when we hired them and everyday, when they come to work, they arrive with the intention of doing a good job. Managers cannot motivate. They can, however, de-motivate. Herzberg established this over 30 years ago (Herzberg, Frederick "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?"
Harvard Business Review, September-October 1987, pp. 109-120. This is a reprint with commentary, of an earlier classic paper.)

The greatest managerial cynicism is that workers are withholding a certain amount of effort that must be bribed from them by means of various incentives, rewards, contests, or merit pay programs. Most managers are not conscious of such a pessimistic belief, but many of their "motivational programs" are conducted as though this cynical premise were true.

The greatest waste of managerial time is time spent trying to manipulate people's minds and infuse motivation into them. Managers' time would be better spent doing the following:

Remove the demotivators Ask people what gets in the way of their doing work they are proud of. Remove those obstacles to pride in work.
Focus on improving the processes You and everyone in your company need to become more aware of what systems and processes are, and how to study them, and improve them.
Focus on customers Something that provides a lot of gratification and satisfaction to employees is to know that customers are excited about the products and services.

Bring awareness of customers into your organization on a daily basis.

This takes hard work and true leadership. Don't waste any more time or energy on perpetuating myths and pretense. Get on with it!

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:01 AM

Behaviorism

by Gary DeMar

Behaviorism originated with the work of John B. Watson, an American psychologist. Watson claimed that psychology was not concerned with the mind or with human consciousness. Instead, psychology would be concerned only with behavior. In this way, men could be studied objectively, like rats and apes.

Watson's work was based on the experiments of Ivan Pavlov, who had studied animals' responses to conditioning. In Pavlov's best-known experiment, he rang a bell as he fed some dogs several meals. Each time the dogs heard the bell they knew that a meal was coming, and they would begin to salivate. Pavlov then rang the bell without bringing food, but the dogs still salivated. They had been "conditioned" to salivate at the sound of a bell. Pavlov believed, as Watson was later to emphasize, that humans react to stimuli in the same way.

Behaviorism is associated today with the name of B.F. Skinner, who made his reputation by testing Watson's theories in the laboratory. Skinner's studies led him to reject Watson's almost exclusive emphasis on reflexes and conditioning. People respond to their environment, he argued, but they also operate on the environment to produce certain consequences.

Skinner developed the theory of "operant conditioning," the idea that we behave the way we do because this kind of behavior has had certain consequences in the past. For example, if your girlfriend gives you a kiss when you give her flowers, you will be likely to give her flowers when you want a kiss. You will be acting in expectation of a certain reward. Like Watson, however, Skinner denied that the mind or feelings play any part in determining behavior. Instead, our experience of reinforcements determines our behavior.

Behaviorism originated in the field of psychology, but it has had a much wider influence. Its concepts and methods are used in education, and many education courses at college are based on the same assumptions about man as behaviorism. Behaviorism has infiltrated sociology, in the form of sociobiology, the belief that moral values are rooted in biology. What are the presuppositions of behaviorism?

1. Behaviorism is naturalistic. This means that the material world is the ultimate reality, and everything can be explained in terms of natural laws. Man has no soul and no mind, only a brain that responds to external stimuli.

2. Behaviorism teaches that man is nothing more than a machine that responds to conditioning. One writer has summarized behaviorism in this way: "The central tenet of behaviorism is that thoughts, feelings, and intentions, mental processes, all do not determine what we do. Our behavior is the product of our conditioning. We are biological machines and do not consciously act; rather we react to stimuli."1

The idea that men are "biological machines" whose minds do not have any influence on their actions is contrary to the biblical view that man is the very image of God - the image of a creative, planning, thinking God. In fact, Skinner goes so far as to say that the mind and mental processes are "metaphors and fictions" and that "behavior is simply part of the biology of the organism."2 Skinner also recognizes that his view strips man of his "freedom and dignity," but insists that man as a spiritual being does not exist.

3. Consistently, behaviorism teaches that we are not responsible for our actions. If we are mere machines, without minds or souls, reacting to stimuli and operating on our environment to attain certain ends, then anything we do is inevitable. Sociobiology, a type of behaviorism, compares man to a computer: Garbage in, garbage out.

This also conflicts with a Christian worldview. Our past experiences and our environment do affect the way we act, of course, but these factors cannot account for everything we do. The Bible teaches that we are basically covenantal creatures, not biological creatures. Our nearest environment is God Himself, and we respond most fundamentally to Him. We respond either in obedience to or rebellion against His Word.

4. Behaviorism is manipulative. It seeks not merely to understand human behavior, but to predict and control it. From his theories, Skinner developed the idea of "shaping." By controlling rewards and punishments, you can shape the behavior of another person.

As a psychiatrist, one of Skinner's goals is to shape his patients' behavior so that he or she will react in more socially acceptable ways. Skinner is quite clear that his theories should be used to guide behavior: "The experimental analysis of behavior has led to an effective technology, applicable to education, psychotherapy, and the design of cultural practices in general, which will be more effective when it is not competing with practices that have had the unwarranted support of mentalistic theories."3

In other words, Skinner wants behaviorism to be the basis for manipulating patients, students, and whole societies.

The obvious questions, of course, are: Who will use the tools? Who will pull the strings? Who will manipulate the technology? No doubt, Skinner would say that only someone trained in behavioral theory and practice would be qualified to "shape" the behavior of other persons. But this is contrary to the biblical view, which commands us to love our neighbor, not to manipulate him.

In summary, the ethical consequences of behaviorism are great. Man is stripped of his responsibility, freedom, and dignity, and is reduced to a purely biological being, to be "shaped" by those who are able to use the tools of behaviorism effectively.

1 David Cohen, "Behaviorism," in The Oxford Companion to the Mind, Richard L. Gregory, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 71.
2 B.F. Skinner, "Skinner on Behaviorism," in Ibid., p. 75.
3 Ibid.

Excerpt used from Surviving College Successfully: A Complete Manual for the Rigors of Academic Combat by Gary DeMar, 1988 by Primero Resources, used by permission of Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc. Available from your local Christian bookstore.

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:16 AM

Rewards Produce Temporary Compliance

Alfie Kohn

Kohn's most recent book is Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes (Houghton Mifflin). This article is adapted from an excerpt which first appeared in the New York Times. Kohn is also author of No Contest: The Case Against Competition.

The basic strategy by which American managers try to improve quality in the workplace can be summarized in six words: Do this and you'll get that. Surveys suggest that at least three out of every four U.S. corporations rely on some sort of pay-for-performance program to "motivate" employees.

Piece-work pay for factory workers, stock options for top executives, commissions for salespeople, banquets and plaques and bonuses -- the variations go on and on, all of them reflecting an uncritical acceptance of a single, simple, outdated view of psychology that derives from work with lab animals. Indeed, the average U.S. company now resembles nothing so much as a television game show: "Tell our employees about the fabulous prizes we have for them if their productivity improves!"

Do incentives work? The answer depends on what we mean by "work." Rewards, like punishments, are extremely effective at producing one thing, and only one thing: temporary compliance. But carrots and sticks are strikingly ineffective at producing lasting change in attitudes or even in behaviors. They do not create an enduring commitment to any value or action; they merely, and temporarily, change what we do.

What's more, some two dozen studies from the field of social psychology have shown conclusively that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task (or for doing it successfully) simply do not perform as well as those who don't expect to receive anything. This result, which has sometimes surprised the researchers themselves, has been found with all sorts of rewards, all sorts of people, and all sorts of tasks (with the most destructive effect found when the task involves creativity.)

In the workplace, not one controlled study, to the best of my knowledge, has ever demonstrated a long-term improvement in the quality of performance as a result of rewards. Short-term boosts in the quantity of production, maybe. But the sort of changes most of us want simply can't be achieved by dangling goodies in front of workers.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that managers are dissatisfied with the "motivational" programs in their organizations. A veritable herd of consultants awaits with new gimmicks for manipulating people, new variations on the same old theme. Unfortunately, the problems aren't really due to the way a given program has been implemented so much as to the simplistic premise of all pay-for-performance programs. Here are four reasons why incentive plans cannot succeed.

Rewards punish

Even those managers who understand that coercion and threats destroy motivation may fail to recognize that the same is true of rewards. Punishments and rewards are not really opposites; they are two sides of the same coin -- and the coin does not buy very much.

"Do this and you'll get that" is not very different from "Do this or here's what will happen to you." Both are ways of doing things to employees rather than working with them. The bonus itself may be highly desired -- who wouldn't want more money? -- but the experience of being controlled that results from someone's having made that bonus contingent on certain behavior is likely to feel punitive over the long run. No wonder one researcher refers to rewards as "control by seduction."

Reward systems are punitive for another reason, too: some people do not get the rewards they were hoping for, and the effect of this is, in practice, indistinguishable from being punished. The more desirable the reward, the more demoralizing it will be to miss out.

Rewards rupture relationships

Research and experience increasingly show that excellence depends on effective teamwork, both because of the exchange of ideas that occurs and the climate of social support that is created. But the scramble for rewards -- particularly when they are made scarce, creating competition -- destroys cooperation.

Relationships between supervisors and subordinates, too, can collapse under the weight of incentives. If a supervisor wields sanctions, chances are employees will be approximately as glad to see that person coming as they would be to glimpse a police car in their rearview mirror. But even if he or she is seen as a rewarder, the effect is essentially the same. Employees will be tempted to conceal any problems they might be having, to present themselves as infinitely competent. Rather than asking for help, they may try to flatter that person and convince him or her that everything is under control. Very few things are as dangerous to an organization as a collection of incentive-driven individuals trying to reassure (and curry favor with) the incentive dispenser.

Rewards discourage risk-taking

Whenever people are led to think about what they will get for doing something, they will be less inclined to take risks or explore possibilities, to play hunches that might not pay off or attend to anything whose relevance to the problem at hand isn't immediately evident. In a word, the number one casualty of rewards is creativity.

Excellence pulls in one direction; encouraging employees to think about how well they are doing (and what they will earn as a result) pulls in another. The proof: a dozen psychological studies showing that the more people are led to think about rewards, the more they prefer easy tasks. Challenge is typically avoided not because of laziness but because incentive systems encourage concern about what one is going to get.

"Do this and you'll get that" makes people focus on the "that," not the "this" which means that prompting employees to focus on how much will be in their pay envelopes is about the last strategy we ought to use if we care about innovation. In short, if the question is, Do rewards motivate people? the answer is, Absolutely. They motivate people to get rewards.

Rewards undermine interest

Artificial incentives are not only less effective than intrinsic motivation -- they tend to undermine it. The more a manager gets employees to think about what they will earn for doing their jobs well, the less interested they will be in what they are doing. Rewards turn play into work and work into drudgery.

The first studies to establish this effect were conducted in the early 1970s by Edward Deci at the University of Rochester. By now, scores of experiments across the country have replicated the finding that people who are promised rewards for doing something are less likely to continue doing it when they have a choice as compared with people who aren't promised anything.

Several practical conclusions follow from this analysis:

It is not enough to change the type of bribe we're offering (t-shirts versus trips versus cash), or the criteria for getting it, or the level at which it's offered (e.g., for teams instead of individuals). The problem is that we rely on bribes at all. Of the four explanations offered here to account for how incentives impede performance, not one will disappear just because we manipulate people a little differently.
The problem is not with compensation, per se, but with turning compensation into a reward -- that is, pushing money into people's faces by offering more of it if they do what they're told. The more closely compensation is conditioned on achievement, the more damage is done.
We have to stop asking how motivated employees are, and start asking how employees are motivated. Motivation isn't a single entity, such that rewards can create more of "it." Rather, intrinsic motivation (loving what you do) is completely different from extrinsic motivation (doing something to get a goody) -- and more of the latter often means less of the former.
If "recognition" of employees is intended to control their future behavior, it will backfire as surely as programs involving tangible rewards. If recognition is intended only as a respectful acknowledgment of a job well done, then it should be done privately, non-competitively, and in the context of a two-way conversion rather than as a patronizing pat on the head.

My recommendation is that business owners pay employees well and fairly ... and then do everything possible to help them forget about money. Attempts to improve an organization by fiddling with the compensation system are doomed to failure, as the late W. Edwards Deming and others have shown.

So what should replace carrot-and-stick psychology?

The quick answer is that there are no quick answers. But three C's offer a good framework: choice, collaboration, and content. Choice means that employees should be able to participate in making decisions about what they do every day. Collaboration concerns the need to structure effective teams. Content refers to the tasks on which people work; as Frederick Herzberg put it, "If you want people motivated to do a good job, give them a good job to do."

Successfully attending to these three factors is much more difficult than offering doggie biscuits to people for jumping through your hoops. But manipulating behavior by offering reinforcements, while a sound approach for training the family pet, can never bring quality to the workplace.

Copyright 1994 by Alfie Kohn.

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:19 AM

FROM DEGRADING TO DE-GRADING

By Alfie Kohn

You can tell a lot about a teacher's values and personality just by asking how he or she feels about giving grades. Some defend the practice, claiming that grades are necessary to "motivate" students. Many of these teachers actually seem to enjoy keeping intricate records of students' marks. Such teachers periodically warn students that they're "going to have to know this for the test" as a way of compelling them to pay attention or do the assigned readings -- and they may even use surprise quizzes for that purpose, keeping their gradebooks at the ready.
Frankly, we ought to be worried for these teachers' students. In my experience, the most impressive teachers are those who despise the whole process of giving grades. Their aversion, as it turns out, is supported by solid evidence that raises questions about the very idea of traditional grading.

Three Main Effects of Grading

Researchers have found three consistent effects of using -- and especially, emphasizing the importance of -- letter or number grades:
1. Grades tend to reduce students' interest in the learning itself. One of the best-researched findings in the field of motivational psychology is that the more people are rewarded for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward (Kohn, 1993). Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that when students are told they'll need to know something for a test -- or, more generally, that something they're about to do will count for a grade -- they are likely to come to view that task (or book or idea) as a chore.
While it's not impossible for a student to be concerned about getting high marks and also to like what he or she is doing, the practical reality is that these two ways of thinking generally pull in opposite directions. Some research has explicitly demonstrated that a "grade orientation" and a "learning orientation" are inversely related (Beck, Rorrer-Woody, and Pierce, 1991; Milton, Pollio, and Eison, 1986). More strikingly, study after study has found that students -- from elementary school to graduate school, and across cultures -- demonstrate less interest in learning as a result of being graded (Benware and Deci, 1984; Butler, 1987; Butler and Nisan, 1986; Grolnick and Ryan, 1987; Harter and Guzman, 1986; Hughes, Sullivan, and Mosley, 1985; Kage, 1991; Salili et al., 1976). Thus, anyone who wants to see students get hooked on words and numbers and ideas already has reason to took for other ways of assessing and describing their achievement.
2. Grades tend to reduce students' preference for challenging tasks. Students of all ages who have been led to concentrate on getting a good grade are likely to pick the easiest possible assignment if given a choice (Harter, 1978; Harter and Guzman, 1986; Kage, 1991; Milton, Pollio, and Eison, 1986). The more pressure to get an A, the less inclination to truly challenge oneself. Thus, students who cut corners may not be lazy so much as rational; they are adapting to an environment where good grades, not intellectual exploration, are what count. They might well say to us, "Hey, you told me the point here is to bring up my GPA, to get on the honor roll. Well, I'm not stupid: the easier the assignment, the more likely that I can give you what you want. So don't blame me when I try to find the easiest thing to do and end up not learning anything."
3. Grades tend to reduce the quality of students' thinking. Given that students may lose interest in what they're learning as a result of grades, it makes sense that they're also apt to think less deeply. One series of studies, for example, found that students given numerical grades were significantly less creative than those who received qualitative feedback but no grades. The more the task required creative thinking, in fact, the worse the performance of students who knew they were going to be graded. Providing students with comments in addition to a grade didn't help: The highest achievement occurred only when comments were given instead of numerical scores (Butler, 1987; Butler, 1988; Butler and Nisan, 1986).
In another experiment, students told they would be graded on how well they learned a social studies lesson had more trouble understanding the main point of the text than did students who were told that no grades would be involved. Even on a measure of rote recall, the graded group remembered fewer facts a week later (Grolnick and Ryan, 1987). A brand new study discovered that students who tended to think about current events in terms of what they'd need to know for a grade were less knowledgeable than their peers, even after taking other variables into account (Anderman and Johnston, 1998).

More Reasons to Just Say No to Grades

The preceding three results should be enough to cause any conscientious educator to rethink the practice of giving students grades. But there's more.
- Grades aren't valid, reliable, or objective. A "B" in English says nothing about what a student can do, what she understands, where she needs help. Moreover, the basis for that grade is as subjective as the result is uninformative. A teacher can meticulously record scores for one test or assignment after another, eventually calculating averages down to a hundredth of a percentage point, but that doesn't change the arbitrariness of each of these individual marks. Even the score on a math test is largely a reflection of how the test was written: what skills the teacher decided to assess, what kinds of questions happened to be left out, and how many points each section was "worth."
Moreover, research has long been available to confirm what all of us know: any given assignment may well be given two different grades by two equally qualified teachers. It may even be given two different grades by a single teacher who reads it at two different times (for example, see some of the early research reviewed in Kirschenbaum, Simon, and Napier, 1971). In short, what grades offer is spurious precision -- a subjective rating masquerading as an objective evaluation.
- Grades distort the curriculum. A school's use of letter or number grades may encourage what I like to call a "bunch o' facts" approach to instruction because that sort of learning is easier to score. The tail of assessment thus comes to wag the educational dog.
- Grades waste a lot of time that could be spent on learning, Add up all the hours that teachers spend fussing with their gradebooks. Then factor in the (mostly unpleasant) conversations they have with students and their parents about grades. It's tempting to just roll our eyes when confronted with whining or wheedling, but the real problem rests with the practice of grading itself.
- Grades encourage cheating. Again, we can continue to blame and punish all the students who cheat -- or we can look for the structural reasons this keeps happening. Researchers have found that the more students are led to focus on getting good grades, the more likely they are to cheat, even if they themselves regard cheating as wrong (Anderman, Griesinger, and Westerfield, 1998; Milton, Pollio, and Elson, 1986).
- Grades spoil teachers' relationships with students. Consider this lament, which could have been offered by a teacher in your district:
I'm getting tired of running a classroom in which everything we do revolves around grades. I'm tired of being suspicious when students give me compliments, wondering whether or not they are just trying to raise their grade. I'm tired of spending so much time and energy grading your papers, when there are probably a dozen more productive and enjoyable ways for all of us to handle the evaluation of papers. I'm tired of hearing you ask me, "Does this count?" And, heaven knows, I'm certainly tired of all those little arguments and disagreements we get into concerning marks which take so much fun out of the teaching and the learning... (Kirschenbaum, Simon, and Napier, 1971, p. 115).
- Grades spoil students' relationships with each other. The quality of students' thinking has been shown to depend partly on the extent to which they are permitted to learn cooperatively (Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Kohn, 1992). Thus, the ill feelings, suspicion, and resentment generated by grades aren't just disagreeable in their own right; they interfere with learning.
The most destructive form of grading by far is that which is done "on a curve," such that the number of top grades is artificially limited: No matter how well all the students do, not all of them can get an A. Apart from the intrinsic unfairness of this arrangement, its practical effect is to teach students that others are potential obstacles to their own success. The kind of collaboration that can help all students to learn more effectively doesn't stand a chance in such an environment.
Sadly, even teachers who don't explicitly grade on a curve may assume, perhaps unconsciously, that the final grades "ought to" come out looking more or less this way: a few very good grades, a few very bad grades, and the majority somewhere in the middle. But as one group of researchers pointed out, "It is not a symbol of rigor to have grades fall into a 'normal' distribution; rather, it is a symbol of failure -- failure to teach well, failure to test well, and failure to have any influence at all on the intellectual lives of students" (Milton, Pollio, and Elson, 1986, p. 225).

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:20 AM

The competition that turns schooling into a quest for triumph and ruptures relationships among students doesn't just happen within classrooms, of course. The same effect is witnessed schoolwide when kids are not just rated but ranked, sending the message that the point isn't to learn, or even to perform well, but to defeat others. Some students might be motivated to improve their class rank, but that is completely different from being motivated to understand ideas. (Wise educators realize that it doesn't matter how motivated students are; what matters is how students are motivated. It is the type of motivation that counts, not the amount.)

Grade Inflation ... and Other Distractions

Most of us are directly acquainted with at least some of these disturbing consequences of grades, yet we continue to reduce students to letters or numbers on a regular basis. Perhaps we've become inured to these effects and take them for granted. This is the way it's always been, we assume, and the way it has to be. It's rather like people who have spent all their lives in a terribly polluted city and have come to assume that this is just the way air looks -- and that it's natural to be coughing all the time.
Oddly, when educators are shown that it doesn't have to be this way, some react with suspicion instead of relief. They want to know why you're making trouble, or they assert that you're exaggerating the negative effects of grades (it's really not so bad -- cough, cough), or they dismiss proven alternatives to grading on the grounds that our school could never do what others schools have done.
The practical difficulties of abolishing letter grades are real. But the key question is whether those difficulties are seen as problems to be solved or as excuses for perpetuating the status quo. The logical response to the arguments and data summarized here is to say: "Good heavens! If even half of this is true, then it's imperative we do whatever we can, as soon as we can, to phase out traditional grading." Yet, many people begin and end with the problems of implementation, responding to all this evidence by saying, in effect, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, but we'll never get rid of grades because . . ."
It is also striking how many educators never get beyond relatively insignificant questions, such as how many tests to give, or how often to send home grade reports, or what grade should be given for a specified level of achievement (e.g., what constitutes "B" work), or what number corresponds to what letter. Some even reserve their outrage for the possibility that too many students are ending up with good grades, a reaction that suggests stinginess with As is being confused with intellectual rigor. The evidence indicates that the real problem isn't grade inflation, it's grades. The proper occasion for outrage is not that too many students are getting A's, but that too many students have accepted that getting A's is the point of going to school.

Common Objections

Let's consider the most frequently heard responses to the above arguments -- which is to say, the most common objections to getting rid of grades.
First, it is said that students expect to receive grades and even seem addicted to them. This is often true; personally, I've taught high school students who reacted to the absence of grades with what I can only describe as existential vertigo. (Who am I if not a B+?) But as more elementary and even some middle schools move to replace grades with more informative (and less destructive) systems of assessment, the damage doesn't begin until students get to high school. Moreover, elementary and middle schools that haven't changed their practices often cite the local high school as the reason they must get students used to getting grades regardless of their damaging effects -- just as high schools point the finger at colleges.
Even when students arrive in high school already accustomed to grades, already primed to ask teachers, "Do we have to know this?" or "What do I have to do to get an A?", this is a sign that something is very wrong. It's more an indictment of what has happened to them in the past than an argument to keep doing it in the future.
Perhaps because of this training, grades can succeed in getting students to show up on time, hand in their work, and otherwise do what they're told. Many teachers are loath to give up what is essentially an instrument of control. But even to the extent this instrument works (which is not always), we are obliged to reflect on whether mindless compliance is really our goal. The teacher who exclaims, "These kids would blow off my course in a minute if they weren't getting a grade for it!" may be issuing a powerful indictment of his or her course. Who would be more reluctant to give up grades than a teacher who spends the period slapping transparencies on the overhead projector and lecturing endlessly at students about Romantic poets or genetic codes? Without bribes (A''s) and threats (F''s), students would have no reason to do such assignments. To maintain that this proves something is wrong with the kids -- or that grades are simply "necessary" -- suggests a willful refusal to examine one's classroom practices and assumptions about teaching and learning.
"If I can't give a child a better reason for studying than a grade on a report card, I ought to lock my desk and go home and stay there." So wrote Dorothy De Zouche, a Missouri teacher, in an article published in February ... of 1945. But teachers who can give a child a better reason for studying don't need grades. Research substantiates this: When the curriculum is engaging -- for example, when it involves hands-on, interactive learning activities -- students who aren't graded at all perform just as well as those who are graded (Moeller and Reschke, 1993).
Another objection: it is sometimes argued that students must be given grades because colleges demand them. One might reply that "high schools have no responsibility to serve colleges by performing the sorting function for them" -- particularly if that process undermines learning (Krumboltz and Yeh, 1996, p. 325). But in any case the premise of this argument is erroneous: Traditional grades are not mandatory for admission to colleges and universities. (See sidebar at the end of this article.)

Making Change

A friend of mine likes to say that people don't resist change -- they resist being changed. Even terrific ideas (like moving a school from a grade orientation to a learning orientation) are guaranteed to self-destruct if they are simply forced down people's throats. The first step for an administrator, therefore, is to open up a conversation -- to spend perhaps a full year just encouraging people to think and talk about the effects of (and alternatives to) traditional grades. This can happen in individual classes, as teachers facilitate discussions about how students regard grades, as well as in evening meetings with parents, or on a website -- all with the help of relevant books, articles, speakers, videos, and visits to neighboring schools that are farther along in this journey.
The actual process of "de-grading" can be done in stages. For example, a high school might start by freeing ninth grade classes from grades before doing the same for upperclassmen. (Even a school that never gets beyond the first stage will have done a considerable service, giving students one full year where they can think about what they're learning instead of their GPAs.)
Another route to gradual change is to begin by eliminating only the most pernicious practices, such as grading on a curve or ranking students. Although grades, per se, may continue for a while, at least the message will be sent from the beginning that all students can do well, and that the point is to succeed rather than to beat others.
Anyone who has heard the term "authentic assessment" knows that abolishing grades doesn't mean eliminating the process of gathering information about student performance -- and communicating that information to students and parents. Rather, abolishing grades opens up possibilities that are far more meaningful and constructive. These include narratives (written comments), portfolios (carefully chosen collections of students' writings and projects that demonstrate their interests, achievement, and improvement over time), student-led parent-teacher conferences, exhibitions, and other opportunities for students to show what they can do.
Of course, it's harder for a teacher to do these kinds of assessments if he or she has 150 or more students and sees each of them for 45-55 minutes a day. But that's not an argument for continuing to use traditional grades; it's an argument for challenging these archaic remnants of a factory-oriented approach to instruction, structural aspects of high schools that are bad news for reasons that go well beyond the issue of assessment. It's an argument for looking into block scheduling, team teaching, interdisciplinary courses -- and learning more about schools that have arranged things so each teacher can spend more time with fewer students (e.g., Meier, 1995).

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:22 AM

Administrators should be prepared to respond to parental concerns, some of them completely reasonable, about the prospect of edging away from grades. "Don''t you value excellence?" You bet -- and here's the evidence that traditional grading undermines excellence. "Are you just trying to spare the self-esteem of students who do poorly?" We are concerned that grades may be making things worse for such students, yes, but the problem isn't just that some kids won't get A's and will have their feelings hurt. The real problem is that almost all kids (including yours) will come to focus on grades and, as a result, their learning will be hurt.
If parents worry that grades are the only window they have into the school, we need to assure them that alternative assessments provide a far better view. But if parents don't seem to care about getting the most useful information or helping their children become more excited learners -- if they demand grades for the purpose of documenting how much better their kids are than everyone else's -- then we need to engage them in a discussion about whether this is a legitimate goal, and whether schools exist for the purpose of competitive credentialing or for the purpose of helping everyone to learn (Kohn, 1998; Labaree, 1997).
Above all, we need to make sure that objections and concerns about the details don't obscure the main message, which is the demonstrated harm of traditional grading on the quality of students' learning and their interest in exploring ideas.
High school administrators can do a world of good in their districts by actively supporting efforts to eliminate conventional grading in elementary and middle schools. Working with their colleagues in these schools can help pave the way for making such changes at the secondary school level.

In the Meantime

Finally, there is the question of what classroom teachers can do while grades continue to be required. The short answer is that they should do everything within their power to make grades as invisible as possible for as long as possible. Helping students forget about grades is the single best piece of advice for creating a learning-oriented classroom.
When I was teaching high school, I did a lot of things I now regret. But one policy that still seems sensible to me was saying to students on the first day of class that, while I was compelled to give them a grade at the end of the term, I could not in good conscience ever put a letter or number on anything they did during the term -- and I would not do so. I would, however, write a comment -- or, better, sit down and talk with them -- as often as possible to give them feedback.
At this particular school I frequently faced students who had been prepared for admission to Harvard since their early childhood -- a process I have come to call "Preparation H." I knew that my refusal to rate their learning might only cause some students to worry about their marks all the more, or to create suspense about what would appear on their final grade reports, which of course would defeat the whole purpose. So I said that anyone who absolutely had to know what grade a given paper would get could come see me and we would figure it out together. An amazing thing happened: as the days went by, fewer and fewer students felt the need to ask me about grades. They began to be more involved with what we were learning because I had taken responsibility as a teacher to stop pushing grades into their faces, so to speak, whenever they completed an assignment.
What I didn't do very well, however, was to get students involved in devising the criteria for excellence (what makes a math solution elegant, an experiment well-designed, an essay persuasive, a story compelling) as well as deciding how well their projects met those criteria. I'm afraid I unilaterally set the criteria and evaluated the students' efforts. But I have seen teachers who were more willing to give up control, more committed to helping students participate in assessment and turn that into part of the learning. Teachers who work with their students to design powerful alternatives to letter grades have a replacement ready to go when the school finally abandons traditional grading -- and are able to minimize the harm of such grading in the meantime.

MUST CONCERNS ABOUT COLLEGE DERAIL HIGH SCHOOL LEARNING?

Here is the good news: College admissions is not as rigid and reactionary as many people think. Here is the better news: Even when that process doesn't seem to have its priorities straight, high schools don't have to be dragged down to that level.
Sometimes it is assumed that admissions officers at the best universities are 80-year-old fuddy-duddies peering over their spectacles and muttering about "highly irregular" applications. In truth, the people charged with making these decisions are often just a few years out of college themselves and, after making their way through a pile of interchangeable applications from 3.8-GPA, student-council-vice-president, musically-accomplished hopefuls from high-powered traditional suburban high schools, they are desperate for something unconventional. Given that the most selective colleges have been known to accept home-schooled children who have never set foot in a classroom, secondary schools have more latitude than they sometimes assume. It is not widely known, for example, that at least 280 colleges and universities don't require applicants to take either the SAT or the ACT ("ACT/SAT Optional," 1997).
Admittedly, large state universities are more resistant to unconventional applications than are small private colleges simply because of economics: it takes more time, and therefore more money, for admissions officers to read meaningful application materials than it does for them to glance at a GPA or an SAT score and plug it into a formula. But I have heard of high schools approaching the admissions directors of nearby universities and saying, in effect, 'We'd like to improve our school by getting rid of grades. Here's why. Will you work with us to make sure our seniors aren't penalized?" This strategy may well be successful for the simple reason that not many high schools are requesting this at present and the added inconvenience for admissions offices is likely to be negligible. Of course, if more and more high schools abandon traditional grades, then the universities will have no choice but to adapt. This is a change that high schools will have to initiate rather than waiting for colleges to signal their readiness.
At the moment, plenty of admissions officers enjoy the convenience of class ranking, apparently because they have confused being better than one's peers with being good at something; they''re looking for winners rather than learners. But relatively few colleges actually insist on this practice. When a 1993 NASSP survey asked 1,100 admissions officers what would happen if a high school stopped computing class rank, only 0.5 percent said the school's applicants would not be considered for admission, 4.5 percent said it would be a "great handicap," and 14.4 percent said it would be a "handicap" (Levy and Riordan, 1994). In other words, it appears that the absence of class ranks would not interfere at all with students'' prospects for admission to four out of five colleges.
Even more impressive, some high schools not only refuse to rank their students but refuse to give any sort of letter or number grades. Courses are all taken pass/fail, sometimes with narrative assessments of the students' performance that become part of a college application. I have spoken to representatives of each of the five schools listed below, and all assure me that, year after year, their graduates are accepted into large state universities and small, highly selective colleges. Even the complete absence of high school grades is not a barrier to college admission, so we don't have that excuse for continuing to subject students to the harm done by traditional grading.
Any school considering the abolition of grades might want to submit a letter with each graduating student''s transcript that explains why the school has chosen this course. In the meantime, feel free to contact any of these successful grade-free schools:

Metropolitan Learning Center
2033 NW Glisan
Portland, OR 97209
503/916-5737
www.pps.k12.or.us/schools/profiles/?location_id=154
Contact: Sue Brent

Poughkeepsie Day School
39 New Hackensack Rd.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
914/462-7600
Contact: Tony Buccelli

Waring School
35 Standley St.
Beverly, MA 01915
978/927-8793
Contact: Peter Smick

Carolina Friends School
4809 Friends School Rd.
Durham, NC 27705
919/383-6602
Contact: Rocco Trisolini

Saint Ann''s School
129 Pierrepont St.
Brooklyn Heights, NY 11201
718/522-1660
http://www.saintanns.k12.ny.us
Contact: Stanley Bosworth

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:23 AM

REFERENCES

"ACT/SAT Optional Colleges List Soars to 280." FairTest Examiner, Summer 1997: 5. (Available at www.fairtest.org.)
Anderman, E. M., T. Griesinger, and G. Westerfield. "Motivation and Cheating During Early Adolescence." Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (1998): 84-93.
Anderman, E. M., and J. Johnston. "Television News in the Classroom: What Are Adolescents Learning?" Journal of Adolescent Research 13 (1998): 73-100
Beck, H. P., S. Rorrer-Woody, and L. G. Pierce. "The Relations of Learning and Grade Orientations to Academic Performance." Teaching of Psychology 18 (1991): 35-37.
Benware, C. A., and E. L. Deci. "Quality of Learning With an Active Versus Passive Motivational Set." American Educational Research Journal 21 (1984): 755-65.
Butler, R. "Task-Involving and Ego-Involving Properties of Evaluation: Effects of Different Feedback Conditions on Motivational Perceptions, Interest, and Performance." Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (1987): 474-82.
Butler, R. "Enhancing and Undermining Intrinsic Motivation: The Effects of Task-Involving and Ego-Involving Evaluation on Interest and Performance." British Journal of Educational Psychology 58 (1988): 1-14.
Butler, R., and M. Nisan. "Effects of No Feedback, Task-Related Comments, and Grades on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance." Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (1986): 210-16.
De Zouche, D. "''The Wound Is Mortal'': Marks, Honors, Unsound Activities." The Clearing House 19 (1945): 339-44.
Grolnick, W. S., and R. M. Ryan. "Autonomy in Children's Learning: An Experimental and Individual Difference Investigation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (1987): 890-98.
Harter, S. "Pleasure Derived from Challenge and the Effects of Receiving Grades on Children's Difficulty Level Choices." Child Development 49 (1978): 788-99.
Harter, S. and Guzman, M. E. The Effect of Perceived Cognitive Competence and Anxiety on Children''s Problem-Solving Performance, Difficulty Level Choices, and Preference for Challenge. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver. 1986.
Hughes, B., H. J. Sullivan, and M. L. Mosley. "External Evaluation, Task Difficulty, and Continuing Motivation." Journal of Educational Research 78 (1985): 210-15.
Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Co., 1989.
Kage, M. "The Effects of Evaluation on Intrinsic Motivation." Paper presented at the meeting of the Japan Association of Educational Psychology, Joetsu, Japan, 1991.
Kirschenbaum, H., S. B. Simon, and R. W. Napier. Wad-Ja-Get?: The Grading Game in American Education. New York: Hart, 1971.
Kohn, A. No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Rev. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
Kohn, A. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A''s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993
Kohn, A. "Only for My Kid: How Privileged Parents Undermine School Reform." Phi Delta Kappan, April 1998: 569-77.
Krumboltz, J. D., and C. J. Yeh. "Competitive Grading Sabotages Good Teaching." Phi Delta Kappan, December 1996: 324-26.
Labaree, D. F. How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997.
Levy, J., and P. Riordan. Rank-in-Class, Grade Point Average, and College Admission. Reston, Va.: NASSP, 1994. (Available as ERIC Document 370988.)
Meier, D. The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem. Boston: Beacon, 1995.
Milton, O., H. R. Pollio, and J. A. Eison. Making Sense of College Grades. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
Moeller, A. J., and C. Reschke. "A Second Look at Grading and Classroom Performance: Report of a Research Study." Modern Language Journal 77 (1993): 163-69.
Salili, F., M. L. Maehr, R. L. Sorensen, and L. J. Fyans, Jr. "A Further Consideration of the Effects of Evaluation on Motivation." American Educational Research Journal 13 (1976): 85-102.

Hebrews116

05-02-2003, 11:47 AM

Well Jim, I guess we better stop giving people a paycheck for the work that they do, because wage based employeement, raises, benefits, retirement, etc. are ALL BASED UPON Rewards and Incentive Based Programs.

We should just all go back to farming and trading food for services. Wait a minute, that won't work either. It would discriminate against those who have no service ability to provide and against those who do a less quality job than what we expected.

I guess heaven and hell is out of the question then. Eternal Life or Eternal Destruction are both Rewards/Incentive Based programs out of the Bible. We're either rewarded with Eternal Life for obeying the Word of God, or we're rewarded with Eternal Destruction for living a sinful life according to the dictates of our own will.

So, if there's no heaven or hell, then I guess there's nothing after death; and if there's nothing after death, then we should start living our lives the way we want to, "LIVE IT UP, YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE, THEN YOU DIE!"

If there's no heaven or hell, then the Bible must be wrong. If the Bible's wrong, then the whole basis of our society and legal system is wrong because it was based upon Biblical principles.

Then that means there is no absolute truth of right and wrong. If there is no absolute truth of right and wrong, then we should all do what's right in our own eyes with no legal or moral obligations or reprocussions.

That then means that serial killers can kill all they want to because to them, that's the right thing to do.

That means that child molestors can molest children if they want to, because in their own eyes, that's okay to do.

That means that rapist can rape all they want to, because that's the "only" way they can procreate, and it's right in their own eyes.

Doing right in your own eyes will only result in anarchy: no government, no laws, no order to things.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept the logic that REWARDS BASED PROGRAMS don't work. It is the foundation to our existance, it is the foundation to society, to the legal system, etc.

The end results are post moderism and anarchy which undermines the foundation of our faith in God.

Sorry, not for me.

Bro.Steingass

05-02-2003, 12:38 PM

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward.

I believe the adult who cannot help but compete, like a child is definately a spiritual problem, however, there is a lne between friendly and deadly competition.

stmatthew

05-02-2003, 02:14 PM

Bro Jim,

I must confess I did not read all if the Info you posted. :) I may go back and read it more later. Have you ever heard of the Robinson Curriculum. I like the idea behind it. It is geared around reading, and seems to have worked well for many. I have it, but we currently use ACE curriculum for our children.

pastorb

05-02-2003, 08:20 PM

Praise the Lord and thank you for all your kind words,

My Daughter is going to be attending Grambling State University on a scholarship. God is so good.

Please keeps us in prayer I have to fly out there and meet some pastors and check out some churches first. God is always first and we don't want her to fail at all, she is only 16 and this is my greatest apprehension.

My daughter is however, very saved and walking in the power of God, but we all know college is full of devils and demons, but if she walks in the light she will be covered by the blood of Jesus.

Any others here have teens who went to college away from home prematurily? She carries herself like a young godly woman and most of the time makes sound decisions, but again she won't have my wife or I their other than by phone.

My wife and I have desided to give her $800 a month for her needs. I don't want her in a situation to ask anybody anything other than Jesus.

She doesn't date and has never dated saved or unsaved. I'm a young man in my 40's about to go bald with worry. help me Jesus.

She won't be leaving until next Jan but still time is moving fast and personally I hope Jesus comes first.

pastorb

05-02-2003, 08:27 PM

Jim,

what education acalades have you achieved? I appreciate the plan you provided the outline for elementary education. We have considered home schooling at times, but just never made the time to persue it.

I don't agree with a lot of things the local education system provides:

My child doesn't go to school to watch movies irrelevant to the lesson.

My child does not go to school to become a salesman.

survivor4christ

05-02-2003, 08:30 PM

Pastor B,

I appreciate your honesty!:)

I do not have a child who is anyway near college age yet. But I have had to send my kids away for six months when I had the baby. I worried all the time that they would just get out there and lose their minds with the things of this world.

And I missed them an awful lot, too!:cry:

But, every time I called, they were talking about how they hated listening to loud music, they reprimanded their drunk uncle for drinking and cursing one time and not being in church! :eek: They made their grandfather take them to church each Sunday, and as you know grandkids have this sort of hypnotic power over their grandkids ;)!!!

They upheld the standard better in the gutters of the projects in N.O., amongst unsaved, ungodly relatives (on their father's side), ducking and dodging bullets, drug dealers, than right here in CT where I thought they would be 'safe.' I was so relieved to receive the good reports from the family! To know that even though I was not there to make sure they lived for God, they knew the difference, PastorB, and they upheld everything I had taught them!

To God be the Glory!

I say this to tell you that no matter where our kids are, God is able to keep them, if we keep them in prayer. I can think of no place more ungodly than the St. Bernard Housing Projects in New Orleans, LA! In a household of no saints! Alcoholic uncles, unsaved aunts, cousins and even grandmothers! Rap music blaring all hours of the day and night. Gunshots ringing out in the night!

But God kept my babies! They knew right from wrong and they did the right thing! And God protected them, too!

And they do not even have the Holy Ghost yet!

God can keep your baby, too, Pastor! Just you and Sis. Pastor keep praying, and find your baby a second family where she can go while in school. She will be fine!

Love, Sis. Wenona

pastorb

05-02-2003, 08:42 PM

Praise the Lord sis, thanks for your kind words.
grad is JUNE 12, 2003

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:26 PM

pastorb,

You wrote:

“what education acalades have you achieved? I appreciate the plan you provided the outline for elementary education. We have considered home schooling at times, but just never made the time to persue it.”

It is not clear to me how my “educational accolades” are relevant to the topic of offering manipulative rewards for grades. Perhaps you can help me understand the context of your question. I will assume you may want to know if I have any qualifications or experience in these issues in educational environments. I will answer briefly with the hope that it will lead the discussion back to an important topic: Should parents employ behavioristic motivational theory on their children?

I have been involved for a number of years in coaching/teaching the senior leaders of business organizations, non-profit organizations, public schools districts, and apostolic home educators. One issue I work with frequently is confronting behaviorism (manipulative bribes and threats). The superintendent of a school district (one of the 100th largest districts in the US) that I have worked with over the past 8 years introduces me to senior district leaders as “this is Jim, my teacher.”
I have worked with several home educators who are members of the GNC.

I posted the articles on behaviorism and rewards with the hope that some here would be interested to examining the roots of these philosophies and would be willing to look at these issues in the light of the Scripture.

There are a number of philosophical roots that make up the foundation of our current educational system. Behaviorism as expressed in standardized testing is a core foundation of the current approach. Related philosophies are IQ theory and eugenics. Behaviorism has its roots in evolution theory. IQ came directly from eugenics philosophy. The eugenics movement in 19th England is the direct source of IQ theory that was widely introduced in the US public educational system after WWI . Evolution theory and racism are the roots of IQ theory. Eugenics is closely associated with the advocacy of abortion and euthanasia. Many who do not recognize the name eugenics may recognize this theory by the usage of one its most famous proponents, Aldolf Hitler. Eugenics was the basis of his superior race theories and the justification he used to exterminate “inferior” races in the death camps.

I realize from years of working to education people about the roots of standardized testing and its accompanying bribes and threats (behaviorism) that most people are not aware of the roots of these concepts.
My hope is that some here might be willing to examine where these ideas came from and use Scripture to evaluate if apostolic people should embrace such philosophies.

God bless,

Jim

www.GloriousChurch.com

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:57 PM

Brother Steingass,

You wrote:

“Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward”.

The behaviorist reward schemes discussed in the articles I posted do not refer to wages. Wages and specifically fair wages are a biblical principle. The challenge is not to receiving wages for work or service rendered, but to manipulative motivational schemes.

You also wrote:

“I believe the adult who cannot help but compete, like a child is definately a spiritual problem, however, there is a lne between friendly and deadly competition.”

I submit the following Scriptural study on competition for your consideration:

The Body Divided:
Competition in the Church

by David Huston and Jim McKinley

www.GloriousChurch.com

The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is "the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18). The word "preeminence" means "to be first in rank or influence" (proteuo, 4409). Jesus is first place in all things. He alone is the Head of the Church, the one who created the Church, and the first one to be raised permanently from the dead. As Spirit-filled believers, we are all subordinate to Him, all members of His one body. Our functions may differ, but our various functions do not effect our status within the body. No member is superior in status to any other. We have all been equalized by the Cross.

John the apostle wrote of a man named Diotrephes, whom he described as loving "to have the preeminence among them" (3 John 1:9). The phrase "loves to have the preeminence" is actually a single word in the Greek, which means "fond of being first, i.e. ambitious of distinction" (philoproteuo, 5383). Apparently this man was a leader of one of the churches that John had intended to visit. His name is interesting in that it literally means fed, nourished, or fattened by Zeus, who was the supreme god of the Greeks. From a Christian perspective, Zeus is none other than Satan himself. Keeping this in mind, let's see if we can discern the spirit that was inspiring Diotrephes' fondness for basking in the limelight of human superiority.

Where do we find the origins of this spirit? Isaiah the prophet described it for us when he wrote:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit (Isaiah 14:12-15).

Because Lucifer attempted to exalt himself above his fellows, he was reduced in stature and will one day be reduced to the depths of the Pit. No longer is he known as Lucifer, the shining one, but instead he is known as the devil and Satan, the adversary of the people of God. And so will it be for every minister of the gospel who follows after Satan's example to exalt himself.

In the kingdom of God, we don't take ministry upon ourselves, we give ministry to others in behalf of our Lord. As ministers of the gospel, we are working for Jesus, not for ourselves and not for the people we are ministering to. Neither we nor any other human being determine the scope or nature of our ministry, Jesus does (though He will confirm it through others). For this reason, we must be careful to minister in the spirit of Jesus, that is, in the spirit of love and humility.

The antithesis of the spirit of Jesus is the spirit of competition. This spirit can be recognized by what it seeks to accomplish. Rather than seeking the glory of God, it seeks the glory of man. Rather than inspiring trust in God, it inspires trust in human ability. Rather than yielding to the influence of God's Spirit, it yields to the dictates of human desire. And rather than striving to reach the stature of the fullness of Christ, it strives only to be superior to others. The spirit of competition detracts from personal excellence as defined by the Scriptures, since it seeks only to be ranked above someone else.

The spirit of competition is the dominant spirit of this world. It is the spirit that incites men to strive to be "better" than their fellows—not to be better than they were yesterday, not to grow up into the likeness of Christ, only to be "better" than their fellows so they can feel superior to others. But Paul wrote, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). So like God, we ought to be emptying and humbling ourselves, not striving to exalt ourselves above our fellow ministers and fill ourselves up on the accolades of men.

As a matter of fact, Jesus warned that "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). The devil is an excellent example of the first part of this principle, and Jesus Himself is a perfect illustration of the second. The Bible says that even though He would have been taking nothing that didn't belong to Him if He had insisted on being treated as God, He nevertheless emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant. Then, going even further, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. "Therefore," Paul explained, "God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name..." (Philippians 2:9).

There are two directions in life that each of us can strive to move in: 1) vertically, up and down, and 2) horizontally, side to side. Vertical movement has to do with our status or position: how high or how low we are in comparison to other people. Horizontal movement has to do with our connections or relationships: how close or how distant we are to other people.

In the kingdom of God, ministry is a matter of moving vertically downward into servant hood and horizontally toward the people we are ministering to—the goal being to get close enough to influence them and help them. The only upward movement we have in this life is spiritual: the ascendancy God gives us over the powers of evil and our own flesh. Our ultimate upward movement is yet for a future time when we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. In the end, the only way any of us will go up is by willingly going down for the present.

The disciples of Jesus struggled with the spirit of competition. On one occasion in Capernaum, He asked them, "What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?" The Bible says they kept silent, because on the road they had disputed about who would be the greatest among them. After calling the twelve together, Jesus told them, "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:33-35).

The preeminent one was doing His best to model the spirit of love to His disciples by taking upon Himself the form of a servant. He was demonstrating what ministry is all about by humbling Himself and becoming obedient. He was showing them, if you want to go up, you must first go down.

Apparently Jesus' words didn't sink in. Just a short time later James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask." Jesus replied, "What do you want Me to do for you?" And they answered without the least bit of embarrassment, "Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory" (Mark 10:35-37). What they were really asking for was, "Raise us up above the other guys. We want to be higher than them." And look at what happens when the members of the body of Christ compete with each other for position and status. The Bible says that when the ten heard it, "they began to be greatly displeased with James and John" (Mark 10:41).

Now there were two factions among the disciples and unity had been tossed out the window. Competition always results in strife and division.

But because of the way He was soon to achieve His exaltation, Jesus was preeminently qualified to rebuke his competitive disciples with the words, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all." And why could Jesus say this so emphatically? Because, "even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:42-45).

The Bible admonishes, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus..." (Philippians 2:5). Oh, that all God's ministers would heed those words today!

Jim

05-02-2003, 11:58 PM

The Boasting of the Spirit of Competition

As we look down through the annals of human history, we can see the spirit of competition at work in every age. This spirit is...

The devil's spirit, who said, "I will ascend...I will be like the Most High."

The spirit of Babylon, where men attempted to build a tower to heaven.

The spirit of ancient Greece, where the Olympic games were born and the "thrill of victory" dominated.

The spirit of idolatry, which is the worship of false gods and ultimately the worship of selfish interests.

The spirit of evolution, which has as its foundation the survival of the fittest.

The spirit of philosophy, which promotes the transcendence of human intellect.

The aristocratic spirit, which places power in the hands of the "best people."

The spirit of Korah, who exalted himself against God's appointed leaders.

The spirit of the sons of Zebedee, who wanted to be set above their fellow disciples.

The spirit of the Pharisees, who loved taking the best seats.

The spirit of the Saducees, who loved wielding power over the common people.

The spirit of Diotrephes, who loved having the preeminence in the church.

The spirit of the Nicolaitans, who were victorious over the people of God (Jesus said He hates their deeds and their doctrine).

The spirit of Gnosticism, which used esoteric knowledge to form an elitist club of pseudo-Christians.

The spirit of Roman Catholicism, with its domineering hierarchy and "infallible" pope.

The spirit of Protestant denominationalism, with its numerous divisions due to doctrinal rivalries.

The spirit of Nazism, with its vile teaching of racial superiority.

The spirit of professional sports, where superiority is the highest value.

The spirit of antichrist, who exalts himself against all that is called God.

Most Americans come to God with a strong degree of competitive spirit. After all, competition is all around us. But we must never accept competition as a valid method in working for God. Instead, we must diligently drive it out of our lives.

To do this, we must first be able to recognize it. Jesus revealed some of the symptoms of this spirit when He cautioned, "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward" (Matthew 6:1-2).

Jesus warned not to go around tooting our own horn. In fact, the Bible has many cautions about seeking after the praises of men. Why is this? It's a trap that places you in bondage to man. In the end, it prevents you from being a true servant of God. As Paul wrote, "Do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10).

When you feel the need to tell how someone complimented you about your ministry, you are entertaining the spirit of competition. When you feel the need to tell how mightily God used you in some situation, you are again entertaining the spirit of competition. In fact, anything you say about yourself that is calculated to make yourself look good is nothing more than self-exultation which reveals our spiritual immaturity. It may be subtle, but what you're saying is, "Aren't I wonderful. Aren't I doing a great job. Come on, praise me." And even worse, you are saying, "Aren't I better than so and so...."

Instead, we should be endeavoring to hide our accomplishments, not even letting the right hand know what the left is doing. If we were truly humble, we would desperately avoid letting anyone know about our accomplishments, since when we reveal them we are stripping ourselves of our eternal reward and accepting the reward of human praise in its place.

This does not mean that no one will ever know about anything we do. It only means that they will not know because we felt compelled to tell it. As Solomon advised, "Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips" (Proverbs 27:2). Our attitude should be that we are totally undeserving of praise of any kind—that we are nothing. As Paul warned, "If anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself" (Galatians 6:3). The word translated "nothing" means "not even one." This is the value of man. We are dust. We have been given a great treasure, but we house it in "earthen vessels." The vessel has no value, only the treasure! The vessel is not worthy of praise, only the treasure!

Every time we toot our own horn, even subtly, we are strengthening the spirit of competition within our hearts. Sometimes it can be very subtle and can seem justified. Let us seek God that He would give us discernment in this area. A competitive spirit left unchecked can very easily take a sincere man in and eventually take him down.

The desire to appear to be in any way superior to others is wrong, prideful, and evil. As James warned, "But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil" (James 4:16). As believers we have but one thing to boast about: "God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14).

Note to the reader —

If you would like to comment on the contents of this paper, please contact the authors via email.

Jim McKinley Jim@GloriousChurch.com
David Huston DAHuston@aol.com

Or contact us through our web site at

www.GloriousChurch.com

www.RoshPinnah.com

We welcome and appreciate all honest comments, questions, and criticisms.

Jim

05-03-2003, 12:38 AM

stmatthew,

You wrote,

“I must confess I did not read all if the Info you posted. I may go back and read it more later. Have you ever heard of the Robinson Curriculum. I like the idea behind it. It is geared around reading, and seems to have worked well for many. I have it, but we currently use ACE curriculum for our children.”

I am not familiar with the Robinson Curriculum. I briefly scanned their web page. I agree with one of the key principles emphasized in the description of their approach; Teaching is an excellent method of learning.

I have no idea if their approach is useful or effective.

I advocate caution with the use of any curriculum because almost all curriculum are based on and are an appendage to standardized testing. I believe home educators are best served by designing their our content for study based on the purpose of an education.

Below is a web page with some great resources for home educators:

http://www.thelearningparent.com/

“The Hands-On Dad” and “Home Educating with Confidence” are essential resources for home educators.

----

The Structure and Objectives of Education

www.GloriousChurch.com

Before looking at the specific objectives of the educational process, let us first consider its overall purpose. From a Christian perspective, the purpose of education can be summarized in the following way: To equip our children to know God in personal relationship and serve Him in His will. It is not to enable them to make as much money as they can, or even simply to earn a comfortable living. Neither is it to make them good citizens or enable them to fulfill their greatest ambitions, hopes, or dreams. A life lived in the will of God may result in these temporal blessings, but they are not the purpose of a Christian's life. As the Bible says, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him" (Colossians 3:17). The purpose of life is serving God to His glory.

The process of educating children can be divided into two phases: the Foundational Phase and the Perfecting Phase. These phases are divided by a transitional period which in most cases will occur between age 10 and 14. Each phase has a few simple objectives which will give parents direction in the great task of educating their children.

The Foundational Phase

As you drive through a community, you will notice that the houses differ considerably. They are different sizes and shapes. They have different types and colors of siding, different numbers of windows, different slopes to the roof line. Yet, even though the houses are different, the foundations of the houses are all very similar. There may be slight differences to accommodate variations in terrain and soil composition, but in general, the foundations are the same.

The purpose of a foundation is to establish a sub-structure strong enough to support the house that is to be built upon it. The same is true of the Foundational Phase of a child's education. The objective is to establish a base of skills and understanding that will support the more specialized learning of the Perfecting Phase. Like the foundations of houses, the Foundational Phase does not vary widely from child to child. The content of the learning process will vary, but the specific objectives of this phase are the same.

There are three simple objectives of the Foundational Phase which every parent and child must understand. They involve a child being able to show competence in the following areas:

1. Reading: Able to read with understanding. This will be reflected in the child showing a strong, continuing desire to read and the ability to describe clearly and accurately to others what he has learned.

2. Learning: Able to learn effectively. This will be reflected in the child's ability to develop strategies for finding, evaluating, and assembling meaningful information about specific topics and his love for acquiring further knowledge.

3. Character: Able to clearly describe the character traits exemplified by Jesus Christ and be demonstrating steady growth in these traits. This will be reflected in the following ways:

The child is consistently honest.
The child is showing the ability to exercise self-control.
The child is willingly accepting responsibility.
The child is demonstrating perseverance in accomplishing tasks.
The child has the ability to connect with and live harmoniously with other people.
The child has the ability to recognize and avoid the harmful behavior of other people.
The child is showing kindness and compassion toward other people.
The child is committed to following Jesus.

Once a child has demonstrated competence in these three areas, he is then ready to transition into the Perfecting Phase. For some children this could happen as early as age 10. For others it may be a late as age 14. As a general guideline, however, most parents should target age 12 as the appropriate time to begin to transition from foundation to perfecting.

The Perfecting Phase

Any 12-year-old child with strong reading and learning skills, with godly character, and with a deep love for learning is in a position to learn about virtually anything and prepare for virtually any calling in life. The only question is, to what life work is a child called. The purpose of the Perfecting Phase is to clarify the calling and prepare the child in specific ways to fulfill the calling.

Like the houses in a community, the Perfecting Phase will vary widely from child to child. This is because it focuses more on content than foundational skills. All children need to possess the three foundational skills, but not all children need to learn about animal husbandry or chemical engineering. There will continue to be some broad areas of learning that all children will need to learn about, but even in these areas, the levels of learning will vary. For example, every child needs to master certain basics of mathematics, but not every child needs to master advanced calculus.

During the Perfecting Phase, the nature and level of learning should be based on the Lord's purpose for each child's life. Proverbs 22:6 states, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." In the original language, the phrase "the way he should go" is a single Hebrew word meaning "his way." In his book Our Father Abraham, Marvin Wilson explains the meaning of this verse. He writes:

There is a great difference between the training of a child according to the child's way (i.e. encouraging him to start on the road that is right for him), and training him according to the way chosen, prescribed, and imposed by the parents. The former is in keeping with the child's unique God-given disposition, talents, and gifts. It is considerate of the uniqueness of the child; it does not treat all developing personalities the same. The correct translation of this verse places the onus on the child to choose the right path. It is one thing for a parent to encourage, nurture, guide, and inform a child so that the child himself is prepared to choose the path that is right for him; it is something else for a parent to choose the path for the child. Parents must carefully observe each child and seek to provide opportunities for each child's creative self-fulfillment.

During the Foundational Phase, parents are responsible for observing their children for the purpose of determining the way they should go. This will mean taking note of subjects each child is particularly interested in and skills they are particularly adept at. This is to begin helping the child find a general direction in life. At this stage nothing should be "chiseled in granite."

During the Perfecting Phase children should be encouraged to explore a wide variety of subjects. They should have many opportunities to talk with adults in a variety of fields. As time goes by, God's purpose for a child's life will gradually come into clear focus. As this happens, the child will need to begin focusing his learning on the specific areas that pertain to his purpose. This may mean learning about animal husbandry if God's purpose is that he be a dairy farmer. Or it may mean learning about chemical engineering if God's purpose is that he be a chemical engineer. This specialized learning can begin at any time but becomes more focused and concentrated during the latter years of the Perfecting Phase.

Jim

05-03-2003, 12:39 AM

The three objectives of the Perfecting Phase are that a young person has become competent in the following ways:

1. Purpose: Able to clearly describe God's purpose for his life. This will be reflected in the young person's ability to describe the gifts God has given him, the general ways in which he will function as a member of the body of Christ, and how he will support himself and his future family. It is recognized that at age 18 a young person will not know everything God has planned for His life.

2. Preparation: Able to accomplish work associated with God's purpose. This will be reflected in the competency the young person has attained in knowledge and skills in the areas of ministry and the field of work the Lord has directed him to. It may mean the young person requires further learning and development. In such cases, both the young person and the parents should know what additional education is needed and how it will be acquired.

3. Character: Able to consistently display the character traits exemplified by Jesus Christ. This will be reflected in the following ways:

The young person is honest.
The young person is able to control his words and actions.
The young person is carrying significant adult responsibility.
The young person prioritizes and successfully completes tasks.
The young person is living in harmonious relationships with most people around him.
The young person is recognizing and avoiding the harmful behavior of other people.
The young person is kind and compassionate toward other people.
The young person's commitment to the Lord is being demonstrated in consistency in prayer and fasting, diligence in studying the Word, and consistent manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit.

The Perfecting Phase of a child's education will normally end as a daily parental responsibility around age 18. At this time, most young people seek out specialized training or enter into their field of work. We should never think of learning as something that ends, however. In truth, the Perfecting Phase ought to continue on for the remainder of the child's life. And this is exactly what will happen for any child who has developed competence in the three foundational areas.

Note to the reader —

If you would like to comment on the contents of this paper, please contact the authors via email.

Jim McKinley: Jim@GloriousChurch.com
David Huston: DAHuston@aol.com

Or contact us through our website at

www.GloriousChurch.com.

We welcome and appreciate all honest comments, questions, and criticisms.

All Scripture references in the main text are from the New King James Version of the Bible, copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, unless otherwise indicated. Definitions of Hebrew and Greek words are taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.

published by
Rosh Pinnah Publications

www.RoshPinnah.com

Rosh Pinnah means “Chief Cornerstone” in Hebrew.

Apostolic Kitty

05-03-2003, 02:12 AM

Pastorb:

I have to admit I love seeing you fret only b/c it's good to see when pastors are human. It's not that I really want you to worry.

I have a feeling your daughter will make out just fine. She's gonna have her mom, dad and a whole slew of other saints praying for her protection and strength in addition to her being a young, powerful woman of God!

And don't worry about your hair. Just keep your wife and her glowing smile next to you and nobody will notice.
;)

Apostolic Kitty

05-03-2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by survivor4christ
I can think of no place more ungodly than the St. Bernard Housing Projects in New Orleans, LA!

No kidding. That is a rough place. To God be the Glory!

I heard a saying some years back that I have kept...

"There is no safer place to be than in the will of God."

pastorb

05-03-2003, 04:43 AM

Praise the Lord Apostolic Kitty,

Thanks alot, you're funny. I am not a deep person at all I like just being me and leading people to Christ. I can get deep because I do no my bible, but I am not in competition with anyone.

Jim,

whoever said it was right, your writings for the most part are to lengthy for me. You know, the attention span thing since you are an educator I'm sure you know that so get to the point.

The reward system was my way, i repeat, my way of provoking him to do better, the money was an insentive, and one i'm willing to spend.

The up side is, he doesn't even ask me for money or run to me for money for his grades any more, because along withg trying harder he is now proud of himself and the fact that he was able to do it, with or wothout the money.

Insentives are not wrong and yes sometimes threatening is not wrong.

I heard one preacher who was black and light skin say, there daughter went to school one day after getting a spanking and the teacher noticed a read mark because the child brused easily; wasn't being abused, just being corrected and the teacher called home and said, (i'll use fake names) "Mrs. jones, suzzy has a mark on her arm and when I asked she said she got a spanking is that true?" Yes, "well Mrs. Jones we appreciate the work that you and your husband do for the community as ministers thats why i'm giving you a courtesy call."

The mother said, my daughter gets every citizenship award, she gets perfect attendance, she gets A's in your class, and you have never had to call me with a discipline problem, do you know why? Because I correct my daughter, don't you ever call my house and threaten so report me for correcting my own child.

Society has destroyed our children and some of the most important values that we as the people of God hold dear.

But brother be a little more breif and get to the point, if you want to hold peoples attention hold a seminar.

I'll read the bible twenty four hours a day, but everything else, if it's longer than "Sam I Am", it better be good.

pastorb

05-03-2003, 09:00 PM

Praise the Lord Wenona, I got your message. Honey you know what time it is. Cyndi read your post and laughed too.

I'm sorry, I love "Sam I am" Curious George is one of my favorites also.

pastorb

05-03-2003, 09:18 PM

Who is it that has the right to say how one chooses to raise their child?

There are some who are angry at the system and how it has effected their child's ability to learn.

There are some who teach half heartedly

There are parents who won't follow up.

And there are those that don't know God and teach immoral subject unders the guize of knowledge is power.

You don't give drug addicts clean needles and sex addicts condems and then say we can't discipline our children.

Rated PG and R movies are being seen in the class room without parental permission.

The school system which is by the way supposed to be supported partially by lotto doesn't have enough money to send kids to the museum without making them salesman and beggers selling candy door to door.

Now we have those who feel the need to phsyco-analsys our kids with ADD, ADHD, ABC, & EFG so that all they can expect out of life is a GED.

If a dollar will help me see whats important and stay in school, so be it.

The bible says He that winneth Souls is wise. I'm just trying to apply the wisdom of God in many ways.

I don't have a problem really with home school, but most I meet saved or unsaved are socielly withdrawn, untrusting, and full of pride.

Jim

05-03-2003, 10:12 PM

pastorb,

You wrote:

“Now we have those who feel the need to phsyco-analsys our kids with ADD, ADHD, ABC, & EFG so that all they can expect out of life is a GED.”

The educational system’s emphasis on labeling students with made up “disorders” is expanding rapidly. The primary beneficiaries of assigning the growing number of “learning disorders” to children are the major drug companies. The expanding “learning disorder” alphabet is based on and directly related to IQ theory and standardized testing.

Students who are labeled with these various “learning disorders” often do have specific problems with what takes place in their minds (problems with the process and structure of thinking). The explanations of why these problems occur given in the theory and descriptions of the various “learning disorders” are without basis or reasonable support. They are made up for the most part. Much of the work I do in the classroom is aimed at helping teachers and children deal with the real issues in their thinking processes and getting children off the drugs. We are experiencing good success at the classroom level. I often work in inner-city schools where great pressure is being exerted by the extreme emphasis on standardized testing.

You also wrote:

“I don't have a problem really with home school, but most I meet saved or unsaved are socielly withdrawn, untrusting, and full of pride.”

My experience with those who have been home educated is the opposite of yours. I wonder what approach the parents of the children you know who were home educated are using.

God bless,

Jim

www.GloriousChurch.com

Joan

05-05-2003, 12:18 PM

I home educate my children. I enjoy the lengthy posts that Jim puts up. If we are honest with ourselves, we usually don't mind reading long posts as long as they say things that are favorable to us or in agreement with us.

This whole socialization issue that ALWAYS comes up is somewhat tiring for us home educators. I have a 10 year old son who has never gone to institutional school. Due to his home education he recently had a very lively discussion with his 68 year old catholic/republican grandmother about foreign and domestic policy (this was a fun discussion because they agreed for the most part). On another visit, however, the discussion was about religion. She believes that all religions come from the catholic religion. Since my 10 year old has been taught history from a Christian perspective, he was able to teach her the truth of the matter. There is a difference of 50 years between them.

My 10 year old has cut our lawn for 3 years now, does his own laundry, teaches the little kids in the neighborhood how to ride bikes w/out training wheels, can cook whole meals for the family, is planning his own lawn cutting business, plays tennis, the drums and bass guitar, and prays with people at the alter. He reads constantly about all kinds of things that interest him. He can get as many books about his own interests as he wants but he still does have to read books on "schoolish" type things like geography, history, biographies. He gets to choose those too. He probably knows more about our government than I do.

This 10 year old has friendships with all ages. He is not "sheltered" from other kids his age. We allow him to be friends with whatever age he's comfortable with as long as it's safe for him. I'd rather he hung with a teen-ager who's safe than someone his own age if they're mean to him. The kids his age are bent on video games and movies. My kids would love to devour that stuff too but it's not available to them in our home because it's not good for them or us. I don't serve poison at dinner for their body so I don't serve poison for their spirits.

As for grades and all that. I'm required to give grades to the state. My children never see their grades. As parents we are required to educate our children. We do that. Learning . . . education is what's important. Don't tell my kids, but I usually give them A's because I don't push things that they're not ready to learn yet. My 10 year old could read when he was 5. My 8 year old didn't learn until he was 7. The public school would have him in some remedial class, separated like a leper from the other kids his age. The goal is for him to learn. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Not all kids of the same age have developed cognatively the same. My 8 year old would have received poor grades - it would be a grade of his person. He would think he was "not smart" like the kids who got A's.

That is how we determine who the smart kids are. The honor roll students are the smart kids.

I'll bet my 8 year old will graduate from high school at about the same age as everyone else without having to go through the humiliation of not being one of the "smart kids".

As for rewards, people will do, even excel in what they value. If you value clean clothes, you'll wash them even if you hate doing laundry. If you value the word of God, you'll study it.

When we chose to home educate we had to get the whole public school thing into perspective. I was trained that the govt knew what my kids needed. What I found is that it's Gods plan for parents to train their children in the way they should go (according to God's plan). It's important for my children to grow up and live for God in His perfect will. If I obey Jesus concerning my kids, I can surely know that God's plan for them is for their good and not for evil. My kids may not ever be brain surgeons or astronauts. Maybe they'll be Holy Ghost filled politicians (yeah) and help shape our country in a Godly way!!!! Or maybe pastors or missionaries or apostles. Maybe carpenters. And/or soulwinners!!!!

If our children can have careers and be Kingdom minded then fine.

I'm sure we all love our children and do the best we know how to. The Lord is so good.

pastorb

05-05-2003, 04:45 PM

Praise the Lord Sister Joan,
I home educate my children. I enjoy the lengthy posts that Jim puts up. If we are honest with ourselves, we usually don't mind reading long posts as long as they say things that are favorable to us or in agreement with us.
Ma’am I realy am not that shallow, I am for one thing impatient and like getting to the point. When we preach we pick 1 maybe 3 points to drive home depending on the message, the audience, and what the Lord is saying to the people, cause once the choir sits down they don’t want to wait all day for a 20 minute message.
(just an example of time)

This whole socialization issue that ALWAYS comes up is somewhat tiring for us home educators. I have a 10 year old son who has never gone to institutional school. Due to his home education he recently had a very lively discussion with his 68 year old catholic/republican grandmother about foreign and domestic policy (this was a fun discussion because they agreed for the most part). On another visit, however, the discussion was about religion. She believes that all religions come from the catholic religion. Since my 10 year old has been taught history from a Christian perspective, he was able to teach her the truth of the matter. There is a difference of 50 years between them.

I appreciate the educational achievments of your son. However, from a spiritual stand point I have no doubt that my now 10 year old is able to hold a mature conversation explaining the necessity for Acts 2:38 and the Pentecost experience. He may take you back to the nicean counsel as well, but all this is not because he was socially isolated for the purpose of maintaining his attention and sheltering him from the evils of public school. I go over my childrens work everyday we talk about what hey did and what they learned and not many parents do that today and therein lies a big part of the problem.

My 10 year old has cut our lawn for 3 years now, does his own laundry, teaches the little kids in the neighborhood how to ride bikes w/out training wheels, can cook whole meals for the family, is planning his own lawn cutting business, plays tennis, the drums and bass guitar, and prays with people at the alter. He reads constantly about all kinds of things that interest him. He can get as many books about his own interests as he wants but he still does have to read books on "schoolish" type things like geography, history, biographies. He gets to choose those too. He probably knows more about our government than I do.

I don’t understand the relevance here, but My children and serveral others in the church make up the praise team, My 15 year old is my piano and organ player God taught him to play, My 10 year old and 6 year old play the drum, my 2 daughter both sing and one is learning the piano. But I was a musician before I was saved I started playing the bass guitar at 10 and then I started playing the drums at 17. I’ve played all over the world at one point through the military. My point is everything you mention above I did as an unsaved child, I was an only child raised by my mother who taught me everything, I was cooking at eight, ironing my own clothes cleaning a full house and making money cutting lawns, shuffling snow, bagging groceries at the local market for money all these things kids in our did, this isn’t a new concept.
My kids have their own bak accounts and are taught how to budget and manage their accounts, they are tithers and investors with AG Edwards. Most don’t teach their children how to avoid financial ruin and the cycle continues.

This 10 year old has friendships with all ages. He is not "sheltered" from other kids his age. We allow him to be friends with whatever age he's comfortable with as long as it's safe for him. I'd rather he hung with a teen-ager who's safe than someone his own age if they're mean to him. The kids his age are bent on video games and movies. My kids would love to devour that stuff too but it's not available to them in our home because it's not good for them or us. I don't serve poison at dinner for their body so I don't serve poison for their spirits.

As for grades and all that. I'm required to give grades to the state. My children never see their grades. As parents we are required to educate our children. We do that. Learning . . . education is what's important. Don't tell my kids, but I usually give them A's because I don't push things that they're not ready to learn yet. My 10 year old could read when he was 5. My 8 year old didn't learn until he was 7. The public school would have him in some remedial class, separated like a leper from the other kids his age. The goal is for him to learn. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Not all kids of the same age have developed cognatively the same. My 8 year old would have received poor grades - it would be a grade of his person. He would think he was "not smart" like the kids who got A's.

That is how we determine who the smart kids are. The honor roll students are the smart kids.

I'll bet my 8 year old will graduate from high school at about the same age as everyone else without having to go through the humiliation of not being one of the "smart kids".

As for rewards, people will do, even excel in what they value. If you value clean clothes, you'll wash them even if you hate doing laundry. If you value the word of God, you'll study it.

When we chose to home educate we had to get the whole public school thing into perspective. I was trained that the govt knew what my kids needed. What I found is that it's Gods plan for parents to train their children in the way they should go (according to God's plan). It's important for my children to grow up and live for God in His perfect will. If I obey Jesus concerning my kids, I can surely know that God's plan for them is for their good and not for evil. My kids may not ever be brain surgeons or astronauts. Maybe they'll be Holy Ghost filled politicians (yeah) and help shape our country in a Godly way!!!! Or maybe pastors or missionaries or apostles. Maybe carpenters. And/or soulwinners!!!!

If our children can have careers and be Kingdom minded then fine.

I'm sure we all love our children and do the best we know how to. The Lord is so good.
I apologize if it seems I am saying your child is socielly deprived and rude, I am not.
This has been my experience with some and I don’t really atribute that to home school as much as I do them individually. My Sister-in-law has her kids in a private school that supposed to be “all that” and she has to go out of her way to get them there and we help when we can but I asked one day why that school?

Her answer was her son is 14 now and the girls at that school are fast and I don’t want him to be around all that temptation. I didn’t want to be mean but I told her, everyman is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and inticed, I said teach your children that wherever they go God is able to keep them. Temptation is in the library, at the playground, in church, but Jesus said, I would that you would not take them out of the world but leave them in the world but sanctify them with thy truth.

But the point is I realize not all are the same nor should all be lumped into the same basket. See we have finance classes and everything from saved folks, my first pastor who is still my friend and father in the gospel was a national bank examiner, who taught budgeting, and tithing, reckonciling check books and bank cards. All these things should be taught in the local church to strengthen the body.