Suspension Is 'Reinforcing' but a Snack Isn't?
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder points out the logical inconsistency of critics who claim suspension reinforces bad behavior while simultaneously arguing that snacks and rewards don't reinforce good behavior.
Key Takeaways
- The inconsistency is revealing - You can't argue that suspension is reinforcing while also promoting reward systems that supposedly work differently
- If suspension is a 'vacation,' rewards are just bribes - The same reinforcement logic applies to both consequences and rewards
- Apply the logic consistently - Either external motivators matter or they don't; you can't have it both ways
Transcript
Is it possible that a snack is not rewarding for bad behavior but suspension is?
I'm hearing more and more complaints that students are getting sent to the office for violent or otherwise wildly inappropriate behavior and getting sent right back as soon as they've calmed down with a snack or having received a snack and this really really bothers us as educators and I think it should and it reflects a kind of thinking that has just crept in everywhere across our profession and now We're hearing that on the other end of the spectrum, if we suspend a student whose motivation is to avoid work, then that's what they want.
We're actually reinforcing them.
So we've kind of seen the logic of consequences flip to where supposedly giving someone a snack for bad behavior does not reinforce that bad behavior, and giving someone a consequence for bad behavior actually reinforces it.
And I think the nature of reinforcement and rewards and things like that you know, is that there are always trade-offs, right?
Some things are going to be a real consequence.
Some things are going to have a reward aspect, you know, like obviously when a kid is suspended, they do get the reward of not having to do schoolwork for a couple of days, or at least not having anyone there to make them do schoolwork.
But what is the alternative, right?
With suspension, the alternative is often power.
If we don't send the kid home, Well, guess what?
That student has become the most powerful person in the school.
They're the only person who can act with total impunity if we're not willing to send them home, even when they're violent.
They're more powerful than the teacher, the principal, all the adults combined who cannot use violence against anyone else.
So, you know, reinforcement does not occur in a vacuum.
It's relative.
But I also think we've got to start using some kind of emperor's new clothes approaches here, like the little boy in the story, the emperor's new clothes.
Everyone realized the absurdity of the situation, but talked themselves out of saying anything about it to the point that they no longer realized the absurdity of the situation.
I think that's the situation we're in now with school discipline, where it's so obvious that we should not be giving students a snack for bad behavior when everybody else doesn't get a snack and like obviously kids need snacks throughout school day kids need to be fed throughout the school day but not as a contingent reward that is going to reinforce the bad behavior and obviously we don't want to set students up in a cycle where they are going to always be able to avoid work and avoid learning like we want to set them up for success but at the same time we don't want to empower them to be violent with impunity to everyone else so we've got to keep these things in perspective and i guess my My takeaway for us as a profession is call this kind of bad thinking out when you see it, you know, and don't accept that when someone else says something that's so obviously wrong that it must just be because they're clever and they have a new idea.
Like if somebody says something that seems just crazy, chances are good that it's just a dumb idea.
It's not actually innovative.
So let me know what kinds of things you're hearing around incentivizing different types of behavior.
Let me know if you're hearing this emperor's new clothes kind of thinking.