Rewards and Consequences

Rewards and consequences have their pros and cons. When I was in the classroom with my first and second graders I tried establishing a rewards system. I hated the inconvenience of having to pay attention to one more detail! One more thing to assess, document, or put money into. My brain just felt overwhelmed and I honestly wasn't very good at being consistent with a system. It just felt a bit artificial and I didn't really sell it well. I wondered if I was accomplishing the right thing with my students - of course I wanted immediate compliance, but were they learning to gain self-control and self-confidence or was I training them to always expect a reward? I guess I believed that external rewards hinder internal motivation and fostering internal motivation is what really creates enthusiasm for learning. Real learning that lasts, not just finishing homework or following directions during group work.

Now  I have my own kids, and I am reconsidering this issue with potty training. My husband and I have been a little frustrated that we've been working on potty-training our son for 2 years - yes, he is almost 4. I have gone through the whole gammit of thoughts and feelings like "Oh my gosh, I am such a bad parent -we haven't gotten a handle on this - something is wrong with him - we are spoiling him to let this go on so long…etc. etc." We have tried rewards like suckers and toys, but then he just asks for treats all day. God forbid he fail to get a treat, and the tantrums go on and on. He didn't seem to be making much progress. After a few weeks he just stopped caring about stickers and treats and was more interested in playing than stopping for potty breaks. Our pediatrician recommended we take a break from training and try again in a few weeks.

Next, we tried consequences - things like enforced potty breaks every half-hour, restricting favorite TV shows or activities that seemed to be distracting him from paying attention to the potty. This didn't work quite so well either because he would just get mad, resist our efforts to control him, and he actually started having more accidents! I couldn’t believe it. I gave up pressing the issue for a few weeks. He has to learn on his own, right? He has to be the one to decide that he is going to learn to monitor himself and DO IT!  Hence - internal motivation. We have always tried to give him a lot of verbal praise and affirmation for his efforts but in the end it comes down to the child. Some kids are much more independently willed than others. 

I did find some really great ideas for rewards at Child Development Institute. They are segmented by age level and focus on activities instead of material goods. Some of these make more sense to me as far as encouraging internal motivation, or at least your personal relationship with the child.

We are still intermittently using rewards, in combination with some consequences, but I have resigned myself to accept that he's on his own timeline with this. He wants to please us initially, and will hopefully feel good about his successes as he masters this new skill little by little!  I would love to hear any stories, wisdom, or redirection you have to offer! Feel free to leave a comment below! Are systems of rewards and consequences an effective way to get kids cooperating, or just an annoying inconvenience? 

How do they work in your classroom?

How do Australian Math Standards compare with Common Core? Are we doing it right?

I'm linking up today with Middle School Math Moments for Workin' on it Wednesday!

Recently a teacher from Queensland, Australia found my Math Assessments with Learning Goals and Scales. They were written for Common Core, and didn't align with her Year 3 classroom, so she asked if I would make one for her. Wow, that would be interesting I thought. I would love the challenge, and since I've spent so much time preparing the Common Core Assessments, it shouldn't be too bad, right? NO, it wasn't bad, it was phenomenal!!!

Ever ask yourself, "What in the world did these kids learn last year?"

Well, if you've had to try and align math skills and concepts from different grade levels in Common Core, you might notice that it is terribly un-sequential. A few grade level groups such as 1-3, 4-5, and 6-8 have some skills that build on each other, but many many of the grade levels will introduce material that wasn't directly taught in years before, and aren't called for very long afterward - meaning that children do not have a consistent opportunity to build mastery in every area from one year to the next. Why was the Common Core written this way? Good Question!! It was explained to me like this; there is x amount of material to cover in x amount of years, so let's divide it up between the different grade levels and make sure they all have about the same amount to cover. Brilliant!

The Common Core committee that wrote the standards also produced a series of documents called the "Progressions Documents for the Common Core Standards"which was essential to me in writing the scales for each standard. They explain that...

The Common Core State Standards in mathematics were built on progressions: narrative documents describing the progression of a topic across a number of grade levels, informed both by research on children's cognitive development and by the logical structure of mathematics. These documents were spliced together and then sliced into grade level standards. From that point on the work focused on refining and revising the grade level standards. The early drafts of the progressions documents no longer correspond to the current state of the standards. 
(See link for citation info).

I think they made an effort, and it seemed logical enough to me, although still very difficult to align different grade levels to show a sequence of skills. Here's a few examples from the 4th grade standards - measuring angles, that is introduced in 4th grade with no previous background knowledge, and then disappears from 5th grade standards just as quickly. In my work I always cite the standards from different grade levels when they apply. The only one I could link to these 4th grade standards was 3.MD.7; adding and subtracting areas. Which really only counts if students are conceptualizing angles as the space between lines, and not the lines themselves. 

Then I saw Australia's standards... here's something comparable. This is a poster from a Year 3 standard that shows an actual progression of skills from Year 3 through Year 4. You can see how each one gradually builds on the next. This is typical of the Australian standards. B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L!

I am currently working with the teacher who made the request to revise the assessment document  to fit their phrasing and methods. The complete assessment, posters, and portfolio pages will be published on teacherspayteachers.com by the end of this month! 

I realize that the Common Core Standards, like everything else in education, will change again. And when that happens, I will have a lot of revising to do! But, hopefully if enough of us have a say in it, we can arrive at a progression that works better for students and teachers. That would be nice. :)