When my son was at school, (he left 3 years ago), the maths teacher had a fridge in the class room with cans of pop in it and if a pupil answered a question correctly, they were "rewarded" with a can of pop.
Although it seems to be absurd, it conforms to the authoratitive school of parenting. That is to reward good behaviour and to not take as much notice of bad behaviour.
This may seem silly but if you know the rules of human behaviour if you make a lot of fuss about negative behaviour (in a negative way) all it does is reinforces the bad behavour.
Human motivation is driven by a process of reward, so to reward kids who would otherwise be bad when they're good is very likely to increase the good behaviour. I'm not saying it's going to work, but that's the theory behind it.
From reading the link provided by fourm member it would appear that any child (which could also read any adult if extended to society as a whole) has a vested interest in behaving very poorly and only `appearing` to improve very slowly. Given that many children are more `streetwise` these days than in the past it looks as if open season on `bribery` is present.
Some time ago I remember a young male being sent on a holiday to Kenya because `deprivation was holding him back` and `preventing him improving`. He went on the holiday at taxpayers expense and upon his return continued his life of crime. Eventually, I believe, he was given a further (custodial) holiday at taxpayers` expense. On his release, or near it, he was interviewed and admitted the latter `holiday` should have been provided instead of the former as in his opinion it did him more good.
As an aside I am far from believing everything I read in any newspaper but refuse for bring politics into a social thread.
Exactly my point. Taken into the wider sphere, if you reward those who behave (in any way) badly for any apparent improvement you in effect penalise those who behave well at all times. In doing so you encourage those who would otherwise behave well to take retrograde steps in order to attract similar rewards.
There is also the argument that some who behave well will not change their behaviour regardless of the apparent incentive; at least they have the moral high ground. The reverse argument will, presumably, be true for those who will not be bribed to behave in a socially acceptable way.
I can understand rewarding all good behavior but rewarding those that normally behave badly for a one off good behavior will have the ones that noemally behave and get nothing thinking that will have to join in with the bad behavior just to get the reward for a one off good thing.
You will then end up with more bad behavior over all.