4

Punishments Work … Sometimes

Punishment in school is synonymous with discipline. It shouldn’t be, but unfortunately it is. The etymology of discipline clearly connects it with disciple, an ardent follower, a learner, a pupil, or a student. Would that our student learners were ardent followers of the learning process. Instead, discipline is equated with the practice of training children to obey rules and a prescribed code of behavior. Teachers are taught to use punishment to enforce accepted patterns of behavior and to correct disobedience and unruly behavior—thus perfecting moral character. Since they are responsible for the welfare of all children in their care, that responsibility has an eminently practical function—that of deterring harmful behavior (41).

Corporal punishment is prohibited in Head Start programs and in most juvenile detention facilities (42), yet, it is still legal to physically punish children in at least 19 states. Many guardians and teachers recognize the following intention of punishment. It is defined by educational practice as: deliberate infliction of physical pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used “as a means of discipline (43).”

The object is usually to reduce aggressive and/or disruptive behavior in the classroom, and to improve learning outcomes for all students by controlling children who are “misbehaving.” Most forms of punishment are acceptable as long as “discipline” is the outcome—many programs include the word discipline in their title. In theory, this is a legitimate and well-meaning goal. But as most teachers will confirm, it rarely works (44).

Teachers are skilled in managing unruly children—children who typically have difficulty focusing, staying on task, and who inadvertently disrupt other learners. They use a generous selection of behavior modification tools to bring these children into line, including reminders, praise, gentle nudges, body language, and unspoken “eye-catching” stares that indicate boundaries, and so on. In so doing, many teachers gain a reputation as “strict,” “severe,” “stern,” or “austere.” At the same time, other teachers gain reputations as ‘lenient,’ ‘soft,’ ‘kind,’ ‘forgiving,’ or ‘tolerant.’ From the standpoint of the student, school can become a constant “cat and mouse” game that is going to end badly for the mouse at some point.

Expected Behavior

Schools are amazingly successful at “pushing out” disruptive children, forcing them to miss out on educational opportunities (45). Once the cycle is initiated, children tend to fall farther and farther behind—thus, defeating the purpose of the intervention in the first place. It is a lose-lose situation that has been documented in many countries where ugly outcomes persist once the cycle of neglect is set in motion (10).

A neural lens sees children as developing brains; errant “outbursts” is expected behavior! That same neural lens interprets all behavior as simply communication. If the child is acting out, acting up, is aggressive, and so on, then the neural lens will immediately recognize the reactive output of an amygdala hijack and will choose immediate remedies that work. When students are driven by “Trauma” and “ACEs,” readiness for learning is seriously impeded. If children were more compliant, less obnoxious, pay better attention, and, in short, “apply” themselves, then they would be welcome in classrooms.

Forms of punishment exist that do not involve physical pain. They reside in a psychosocial, mentalistic mode that prove to be as (or even more) damaging for developing brains (46). In this respect, punishment is the quintessential “personalized” learning program, and is sadly delinquent in terms of academic outcomes and better student engagement (47).

In a previous chapter, we uncovered the precariousness of “rewards” associated with a persistent reinforcement aspect of Skinner’s operant conditioning model. In attempts to understand the “inputs and outputs” of the human brain, he settled on a theory that didn’t involve seeing inside the brain. In so doing, Skinner worked from the assumption that unobservable events obey the same laws as observable events. Skinner’s position was simply that the ultimate causes of behavior are located in an organism’s individual history, and in the species evolutionary history, not in the brain (48). Skinner was recognized by many prestigious bodies for his contribution to mankind (48). He would probably be immensely disappointed today to observe how classrooms conflate stimulus response, operant conditioning, and rewards and punishments with little regard to the science behind how or why they work or not.

Punishment Model

Following Skinner’s model, punishments are rendered positive or negative by giving or taking away a stimulus. To get desired results, introduce a noxious stimulus (something the child does not like) or take away an appetitive stimulus (remove something the child really likes). Both of these actions will get the child’s full attention, if nothing else. But attention per se is not the same as learning.

In order to decrease behavior that is deemed undesirable, a teacher might introduce a noxious stimulus. For example, as shown in Figure 4.1, a teacher might beat a child for being disrespectful or disobedient. If the behavior persists, the teacher might remove an appetitive stimulus by confiscating the child’s cell phone for a number of hours, or by banishing the child to the principal’s office.

A visit to a classroom today will find many tangible examples of rewards and punishments. Many of these are, in addition to official discipline, standards mandated by the district. The research on this matter is very clear. Punishments rarely work. Furthermore, exclusionary practices have been shown to have ongoing social impact throughout a child’s lifespan (10). According to experts at the US Department of Health & Human Services and the US Department of Education, children who are suspended or expelled in early years (pre-school or elementary) are up to ten times more likely to not graduate high school (49). In addition, these same children experience high levels of academic failure and are placed on a pathway to incarceration later in life (50). Yet, exclusionary practices are common in schools everywhere.

To make matters worse, we use the power and speed of the Internet to reward or punish children in real-time. The Bracey Report decries the use of technologies that permit teachers to do in nanoseconds “things that we shouldn’t be doing at all (51).” For instance, real-time technological programs (e.g., Clipping, see Figure 4.2) are used to discipline children. While there are very real advantages to having an electronic program that allows the guardian to engage so easily with the teacher, labeling and stratification aspects of these programs are dismal for at least 50% children (52).

Educational intentions often fail to align with academic outcomes. And technology is rarely the solution. Adding technology to poor pedagogy simply accelerates dysfunction.

Clipping is supposed to “promote good choices” for a child and, conversely, to teach the child how to “learn from poor choices.” The child has to be monitored by the teacher who has to “notice” good choices and “notice” bad choices. Beware Pygmalion in the classroom (34)! Color code begins with green in the center of the board and goes up, or down, from there. Colors are associated with good and bad behavior. “Good” progresses through blue, purple, and pink. “Bad” sinks through yellow, orange, and red. Clipping down involves quite a bit of public shaming and humiliation, and exclusion from fun activities. The parental reach is a further threat with more punishment, berating, and loss of privileges. Following is an ideal description of how clipping works in a typical classroom. Ideal is often subjective.

Other classroom management techniques involve high speed Internet so that the child cannot avoid or ignore the very public exposure of what is occurring. Efficiency is the watchword of these programs. In a few nanoseconds, with a simple finger touch to a pervasive smart board screen, a child’s compliance can be made public or else! Bribes and threats, carrots and sticks, in fact any kind of reward or punishment, do not sit well with (i) a child’s intrinsic motivation, (ii) Reptilian survival instinct, and (iii) emotional midbrain regulation.

Rewards will sometimes gain a short-term compliance, but punishment damages the innate learning capacity that every child is born with. In these tech-enabled compliance “factories”, the definition of learning goes out the window. Learning cannot be about teacher “catching” children being good or bad? Instead of “co-creating with” a child in a safe and inclusive environment, the teacher is seen as someone who is “doing” things to kids. The safe welcoming classroom environment that we say we desire and hope to create cannot survive when children are publicly competing with each other for points, token economies, and teacher’s approval.

Compliance is a critical teaching component if the ideal stems from quiet children doing what the teacher says. However, learning has nothing to do with compliance: agency and interest ignite each child when the classroom speaks to social and emotional wellbeing. A sense of belonging trumps compliance every time.

Teacher Talk

All teachers will have experienced the opposite to the ideal of compliant, focused learning. They look for tangible, concrete strategies that they can use immediately to solve issues that show up. They typically seek solutions for the five or six children who are just difficult to corral. Herding cats seems easier sometimes. What to do about temper tantrums, aggressive behavior, deliberate disruption, and “externalizing?”

Strategies for Change

Teachers who have made the shift to a neuro cognitive stance do things very similar to all other teachers. To the un-tutored eye, it might all seem to fit the model that has been occurring in classrooms for a long time. Yet, on deeper investigation and when the observer is shown what to look for, amazing revelations are made visible.

Simple Strategies

1. Vocabulary? All change begins with words. When a teacher says something like, “That behavior is unacceptable!” it is clear that the teacher doesn’t yet believe that all behavior is communication. The child who is acting up and aggressive is more often than not in an amygdala hijack. Once the teacher recognizes the neural connection, it is easy to engage the problem and bring the child back into executive function brain.
2. Neurotransmitters? The room seems filled with fun—how did you do that (e.g., Brain Break. See Figure 4.3)? Why do these children seem to like you and yet they treat me like a pariah? I have to teach them math. They seem to struggle at math, yet they are excelling at composition and writing. Why are they so delayed in math and so advanced in reading, writing? I don’t get it?

Radical Strategies

1. Age plus One! If the students are 9 years old, plan on getting them out of their seats every 10 minutes (or so), standing up and crossing the midline in a fun brain break.
2. Attention Grabber! NOVELTY = ATTENTION! “How many times do I have to remind you—if you would only apply yourself you could be top of your class?” Instead of struggling with threats like this, how about a novel way to guarantee student’s attention. One example of novelty is music. Use a harmonica to introduce novelty when it’s time to transition (See Figure 4.4). Many teachers are adept at playing a lively chord sequence, which signals the children that it is time to transition. It’s easy to associate a pleasant chord with a safe, happy, and supporting learning space.

Summary

In this chapter, we reviewed the science behind why the construct of “punishment” is rarely effective and often damaging for children. For some children, it forces them into a place of active avoidance—a far cry from intrinsic motivation. What does it actually look like to remove systems of rewards and punishments, to move toward intrinsic motivation? Body language, words out of our mouths, set-up, transitions, recess—each of these items needs to be adjusted in order to insert a neural commitment into how we show up and teach in our classrooms.

Vocabulary

Stimulus Response, Motivation, Active Avoidance