Please tell me if this is fair...

[ew0054]

The following scenario is roughly based on a personal experience in elementary school, which for some reason has surfaced itself in my mind and I cannot seem to let go of...


It is a class of twelve second-graders. Since the beginning of the school year, the students have acted out like uncivilized savages. However, there is one student, Ernest, who behaves. While the other students are throwing things, making noise, breaking equipment, and otherwise acting like wild animals, Ernest quietly gets his work done and is obedient to the teacher.

At this time, Super Nintendo was all the rage, so in January, the teacher decided that to encourage good behavior, the school would purchase a Super Nintendo Entertainment System for the class, that only the well-behaved students would be allowed to play, once they got their work done.

Naturally, Ernest had been behaving all year, and so he was allowed to play on the Super Nintendo upon completion of his work. Of course, the other students got jealous, and acted out even more.

Teacher: "Only Ernest may play the Super Nintendo!"
Student: "Why only Ernest?"
Teacher: "Because only Ernest has been behaving!!!"

A month of this went by and eventually the other students got the hint.

Student: "Madam, I have finished all of my work. May I please play on the Super Nintendo?"

But the teacher denies their requests, because of two reasons. For one, she knew that they were only behaving because they hoped to gain something from it. Second, this would make Ernest feel like a fool for having been a good student all this time - with no prior motivation. After all, if these brats get rewarded for their sudden good behavior, then why should Ernest have been obedient thus far?

So you tell me if the decision on the teacher's part was fair.


I kind of think it was, because I was Ernest. Heh heh.

For the record, that exact scenario never happened. They never got a Super Nintendo for the class. They got something that all the kids wanted to play with, but only I was allowed to because I was a good student... boy have the times changed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But the teacher denies their requests, because of two reasons. For one, she knew that they were only behaving because they hoped to gain something from it. Second, this would make Ernest feel like a fool for having been a good student all this time - with no prior motivation. After all, if these brats get rewarded for their sudden good behavior, then why should Ernest have been obedient thus far?

So you tell me if the decision on the teacher's part was fair.

The teacher was wrong. She made a deal and reneged. She offered a reward for changed behavior, and when the kids responded and changed how they behaved she falied to live up to her side of the deal. Terrible teaching and a bad role model.

 

[ainwood]

Pretty much agree wioth birdjaguar. If the teacher puts incentives in-place to improve student behaviour, then she shouldn't be surprised that the incentives work and behaviour improves.

 

[ew0054]

I didn't think it was right either. It was kind of funny though, now that I look back on it, how everyone hated me because of it! I guess I had some nerve actually doing my assignments. LOL!!! Ah, those were the days. Not a care in the world but video games.

Come to think of it, my life hasn't changed all that much. I LOVE CIVILIZATION!

 

[Cuchullain]

I agree with Birjaguar. The teacher's response was arbitrary, and would only serve to promote negative behavior. After the teacher went back on his/her word, how can they expect the other students to trust them again?

 

[King Flevance]

Yeah, unfair. The teacher taught the children that they may as well act out in life because the reward could be be a lie so why bother?
Also, it was unfair to you.

now that I look back on it, how everyone hated me because of it!

She rewarded you by excluding you from the environment of your peers by turning them against you.

This was unfair on many levels to all the children, including yourself.

 

[Narz]

Was the teacher hot? Maybe she should've offered a different reward, seems a popular approach these days.

 

[ew0054]

LMAO!!!

No, I'm sorry to disappoint you, my friend, but from what I remember she was an old hag with a shrill voice, and a man's haircut to boot.

 

[Stylesjl]

You go back on a promise, then don't expect sympathy when you face the consequences.......

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Teacher: "Only Ernest may play the Super Nintendo!"
Student: "Why only Ernest?"
Teacher: "Because only Ernest has been behaving!!!"

The teacher is explicitly admitting, here, that the Super Nintendo is granted as a reward for good behavior.

If she's ok with giving out rewards for good behavior as (presumably) a surprise, then what's her moral problem with declared rewards for good behavior?

Moreover after the first day the surprise was removed and Ernest's situation was identical to everyone else's. After the first day it's impossible to determine whether Ernest is being naturally good or continuing to be good because of the incentive.

I conclude that your teacher was an asshat.

 

[MrCynical]

Unfair, the teacher has broken a direct promise. This will only serve to annoy the other students, and make them behave worse (and cause further anger against the Ernest himself for the preferential treatment he receives). If you're going to try the (very dubious) approach of bribing kids to behave well, you have to follow through with the deal, or you'll make matters far worse. Not doing this only enforces the kids' opinion that they have nothing to gain by behaving well, and they recieve the impression from someone who is supposed to be a role model that favouritism and promise breaking is acceptable.

 

[Elrohir]

If she agreed to reward the students for good behavior, and then reneged on her deal afterwards, then that was wrong and unfair, not to mention counter-productive.

 

[Mirc]

I think the teacher was wrong. I agree with what Birdjaguar said about this.

 

[Aegis]

Why bother having a carrot-and-stick approach if you're not going to follow through with the reward?

If you're trying to change their behaviour by offering an incentive, why would you a) be surprised they changed their behavior and b) then deny them the reward? That does not make sense.

 

[ffman]

The following scenario is roughly based on a personal experience in elementary school, which for some reason has surfaced itself in my mind and I cannot seem to let go of...


It is a class of twelve second-graders. Since the beginning of the school year, the students have acted out like uncivilized savages. However, there is one student, Ernest, who behaves. While the other students are throwing things, making noise, breaking equipment, and otherwise acting like wild animals, Ernest quietly gets his work done and is obedient to the teacher.

At this time, Super Nintendo was all the rage, so in January, the teacher decided that to encourage good behavior, the school would purchase a Super Nintendo Entertainment System for the class, that only the well-behaved students would be allowed to play, once they got their work done.

Naturally, Ernest had been behaving all year, and so he was allowed to play on the Super Nintendo upon completion of his work. Of course, the other students got jealous, and acted out even more.

Teacher: "Only Ernest may play the Super Nintendo!"
Student: "Why only Ernest?"
Teacher: "Because only Ernest has been behaving!!!"

A month of this went by and eventually the other students got the hint.

Student: "Madam, I have finished all of my work. May I please play on the Super Nintendo?"

But the teacher denies their requests, because of two reasons. For one, she knew that they were only behaving because they hoped to gain something from it. Second, this would make Ernest feel like a fool for having been a good student all this time - with no prior motivation. After all, if these brats get rewarded for their sudden good behavior, then why should Ernest have been obedient thus far?

So you tell me if the decision on the teacher's part was fair.


I kind of think it was, because I was Ernest. Heh heh.

For the record, that exact scenario never happened. They never got a Super Nintendo for the class. They got something that all the kids wanted to play with, but only I was allowed to because I was a good student... boy have the times changed.

Ernest, you sound like me at that time. I'd never talk in class - other children would pester me - why aren't you talking, etc, etc - but I'd do nothing. The only concern I had: #1: Doing my studying to the best of my ability, and #2: Not getting into trouble. Needless to say, I opened up a bit later on, but school and the grade I got always remained the #1 concern. I think the whole Super Nintendo issue was wrong - the teacher ought to have thought out how the other students would've acted - lose/lose situation, no matter the outcome with the student's behavior.

 

[GeneralZed]

If she would have let them play on the snes, it would break within days and there wouldnt be nothing left to paly with so the chaos would continue. The teacher did right

 

[jalapeno_dude]

If you make a promise, you should keep it...

 

[happy_Alex]

Good idea with the computer games. You sound like the type of kid who would have worked with or without computer games anyway, so although her method was right her excecution was pretty crappy.

I let my students play civ or table tennis during lunch or registration though I dont base it on who has been the best "behaved" or I would be there for ever.

 

[LLXerxes]

As long as the work is being done. If you're not going to follow through, than what motivation is that to keep going, besides the good grades. I think that she should have let them, because they were doing the work and that's what matters. It makes a good habit for future classes.