Rationalamerican: Classroom Token Economies

All available topics:

Classroom Token Economies

Last edited September, 2005, Last Reviewed September 2007

Many adults remember as a child receiving gold stars or stickers on a paper graded by their teacher. Such were the precursors to modern day token economies in American classrooms. We will discuss here some of the background and implications of token economies as implemented in schools today.

The term token economy refers to the many “classroom management” techniques popular in the present day that offer a system of extrinsic rewards or tokens for the accomplishment of work, the achievement of a goal, or the demonstration of certain behavior. Such systems can be as simple as stickers on a calendar, or as complex as a point structure under which high scoring children can cash in their chips for prizes or candy. One system involves a publicly displayed chart of a baseball diamond where each child has their name on a baseball and poor behavior can lead to a strike out. Other systems offer pizza, money, or “no homework” passes for the accomplishment of certain goals. Some carrot and stick systems foster competition between students through the use of publicly displayed charts or reward ceremonies. The variations are almost endless, but the common thread is a concrete reward system aimed at managing or modifying the behavior of children in the classroom. In street terms, we are talking about bribes. Teachers utilizing these techniques often testify that a reward system helps them with students who need extra motivation or who would otherwise misbehave.

Token economies are based on a behaviorist view of human action, and there is little question that the behavior of children is modified at least in the short run. Rewards and punishments do have an effect, but what is the basis and what is the nature of that effect? In the field of psychology, these types of systems have been studied extensively from the early 1970s to the present day. Early studies like those done by Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett, by Deci, and by Kazdin and Bootzin over a quarter of a century ago showed that token economies reduce the intrinsic interest of children in particular tasks and that the reward systems do not encourage permanent changes in behavior. If rewards continued, interest in the task dulled. When the rewards stopped, so did the induced behavior.

Parents using token economies can easily recognize this equation for themselves. Suppose a set of parents has a goal for their daughter to prepare the table for dinner each night. Using a behaviorist view, they could offer to take her out for ice cream after dinner for each night that she sets the table without being prompted. Sure enough, the child responds and sets the table without being prompted. She has no intrinsic interest in the task, however, and soon she is bargaining for better rewards in order to perform or she ignores the task altogether by noting that she isn’t interested in ice cream tonight anyway. The parents will now be forced to ratchet up the reward system, plead or shout, or set the table themselves. Instead, the parents might have constructed an intrinsic value in setting the table perhaps by delaying dinner until the task is completed by the hungry daughter, or by offering warm praise for the daughter’s participation in readying for a family dinner, or by asking their daughter to surprise them with a creative way to set the table for dinner. Such an approach brings meaning to the task for the daughter and cements a long term commitment to the task. Soon the daughter is setting the table without prompting because she knows she will not eat until it is done, or because she enjoys surprising her parents with new ways to decorate the table.

Just as studies in the field of psychology rejected token economies as counterproductive and unnecessary, the field of education began to embrace the idea. Even as author Alfie Kohn and others published devastating critiques of the practice in books like Punished By Rewards, classrooms across the country were implementing token economies on a level of complexity never seen before. Why? Teachers cited factors such as motivation and courteous behavior in the classroom, not to mention a new push for “accountability” that held teachers personally responsible for the ranking of children in their classrooms, regardless of outside factors. Just as in the business world where there was a drive for short term gains that would play well in the irrationally exuberant stock market, in the world of American education there was—and is—a push for short term gains in scores and “school report cards” that play well in the court of public and political opinion. Token economies got the short term job done. Yet, no matter how benign the explicit message in a token economy may be, the implicit message is something much different. To understand the impact, we must first understand the nature of children.

Children in their natural state are inquisitive, creative, and highly motivated to learn. Infants learn to walk and to speak on their own, motivated only by an innate desire to discover and to communicate. Toddlers left to their own devices for even a few seconds frantically reach out to touch and explore the world around them. Young children observed alone from a careful distance will invariably be seen making up stories, poking at bugs, or looking up at the great sky above for new clues about the universe. This innate desire, this natural curiosity does not end upon enrollment in Kindergarten. If anything, with advancing skills and increasing knowledge children find even bigger aspirations. A child is a sponge. Why, then, would a child in a classroom lack motivation over the long term?

Proponents of token economies often gloss over this question. Instead, they perceive a problem and they take steps to modify behavior. The explicit message they give to children in their classroom is that hard work and good behavior will result in a reward in the form of a sticker, a “no homework” pass or a slice of pizza. How can one argue with such a simple and universal equation? As adults, we work extra hours or toil in difficult conditions in order to earn more money or prestige—isn’t this the same equation? Is it not positive to prepare students for the inevitable process they will face in their adult lives?

Actually, formal studies show many of the some issues with token reward systems in the adult workplace as are found with young children. Plus, children are not adults. They do not yet need to earn money, or support families, or to make difficult life decisions that involve significant self-sacrifice. Instead, they need to take the time to learn the intellectual skills, to gather the critical mass of knowledge and to feel the confidence in their growing abilities in order to make accurate decisions when they do become adults.

Like it or not, the implicit message in token economies is something very different than what proponents would intend. In short, that message is: “what we are doing in our classroom is work that is not fun or interesting; therefore you will be rewarded with these tokens to persuade you to accomplish our goals for you.” In other words, it isn’t about projects or activities that are motivating by their nature; it’s about slogging through intolerable jobs that must be rewarded with points and chips or they wouldn’t be worth doing. It isn’t about taking advantage of a child’s innate desire to learn; it’s about stressed out teachers forcing the required facts and behavior into each child-unit until the statistical objective is achieved. If a “no homework” pass is a reward, what does that say about the homework? A child immersed in the token economy model quickly learns to inquire: I’ll do the unpleasant labor, but what is my reward? What stands out in the child’s mind at the end of the school day is not the fascinating knowledge, the refined skill or the captivating event that his teacher may have and certainly should have strived so hard to cultivate. Invariably, it is the number of chips, the strikes on the baseball field, the plastic prize, the homework pass, or some other carrot and stick system that comes to fore. Parents inquiring about their child’s day at the supper table will hear of the intricacies of the reward system and not of the way he solved a mystery by multiplying big numbers.

This message can also create further damage to a child’s natural curiosity in the form of classroom competition. Since many of the token economies are presented in a public way, children in the classroom are now intimately aware of where they stand in comparison to their peers. This is especially damaging during certain developmental stages. The competition to win prizes, to look good in the perceived eyes of his teacher, and to appear smarter and faster than his fellow students can overpower a child’s innate desire to explore, to discover and to expand his own abilities. Lifelong learners live the latter and are oblivious to the former. Instead of a child challenging himself to reach greater heights, he is now more concerned with how he compares with others in his class. Again: children are not adults. Children of the same age in the same classroom may have widely varying degrees of intellectual, emotional and physical development. By adulthood, this development levels out. For now, though, the variances can cause great turmoil in the mind of a child who, by way of a token economy that highlights differences, perceives that he is different or substandard in some way. If the child finds himself ahead of the classroom curve he may come to feel superior and therefore find less desire to stretch his capabilities. If the child finds himself behind the classroom curve, his feelings of shame may force him to simply shut down to avoid further embarrassment. It is easier to be labeled a “bad” student than a “stupid” one. Ironically, proponents of token economies will often respond to these scenarios with even more reward systems on the theory that their students need further motivation.

We must recognize, of course, that every child has days when, for a variety of potential reasons, true motivation is lacking or natural curiosity has waned. This is natural and understandable. Over the long term, though, the innate desire to learn is a powerful engine for growth. Proponents of token economies may very well find a lack of motivation over the long term on the part of many or all of their students in their classroom. The amount of time and effort put into token economies and what are supposed to be motivational systems is necessarily time and effort taken away from the planning of projects and activities that are motivational by nature. By acting on the premise that some students need a reward system for extra motivation, a self-fulfilling prophecy is created so that all the students require a token economy in order to complete any task at all or even to behave like humans. Results may well be seen when measured by the number of pages read, the reduced number of behavioral incidents, or the average scores on tests. But at what cost are these results? Instead of children who are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge and new skills simply because they find it stimulating, the classroom is filled with factory workers who will meet their minimum learning quota only if the right price point is reached. The teacher implementing large scale token economies is trading a career spent in witness of students discovering the joy of learning to the career of a factory manager managing student-units.

What is the alternative for teachers, though? In an interview in Family Education written by Ann Svensen, author Alfie Kohn noted:

“A lot people who say, ‘No rewards? Well, what's the alternative?’ are really asking for another gimmick to get obedience in the short run. If you try to offer a deeper, more challenging strategy that involves bringing the child into decision making, they say that's not realistic. Many of these parents and teachers sense that the alternative to rewards is a more democratic family or classroom. This is profoundly threatening to people who need to have others do exactly what they are told…Ultimately, we have to look hard at the assumption that if we are not in control of children, then there will be chaos, and children will do evil things. We also have to recognize that the alternative to control is not a hands-off, permissive approach. It is an approach to problem solving that supports kids' capacity to make responsible decisions; one that offers them guidance and help. The alternative is not to do nothing.”

If parents and teachers ask children to take on tasks and goals that are disconnected from their lives or that lack any meaning for the child, it isn’t surprising that a bribe is necessary. Full page dittos with multiplication problems are not exciting to any child or adult, and several slices of pizza might be necessary. On the other hand, a string of multiplication problems that are connected to the solving of an engaging puzzle or a life-related problem can have intrinsic value for a child. Expert parenting and teaching strategies are essential (and also readily available) to allow intrinsic motivation to supplant reward systems. Adults who carefully construct a meaningful environment for children discover that learning and doing can be its own reward and that classroom management is no longer an issue.

Parents and teachers finding a lack of motivation in the children they care for would do better not to implement more token economies, but to identify the reasons an innate desire has been dimmed. The task can be daunting, for certain. A child can lose interest due to reasons related to health or emotional well-being, due to poorly planned curriculum, due to social issues, or even due to misjudgment on the part of the parent or teacher. Even more difficult, each individual child could have different issues to understand. Small wonder, then, that a behaviorist approach that promises quick, short term gains is popular. Yet, the enormity of the task does not relieve parents and educators from the responsibility to raise children in an environment that will foster long term success.

As David Ruenzil put it in his Teacher Magazine article “Gold Star Junkies” written in 2000:

“…if the makers of educational policies worried half as much about making what's taught interesting and relevant as making it count, our children would be happier as well as productive. And that—even during a time in which productivity and prosperity seem to mean everything—has got to count for something.”

In summary, it is in the best interests of our children and our national future that we wean ourselves from short term behaviorist fixes and concentrate instead on creating classroom environments that are engaging, authentic and that utilize the natural intrinsic motivation of children learning for the sake of learning.

To cite this article:

Painter, John. Classroom Token Economies. (September 2005). Retrieved month x, 2xxx, from

<http://rationalamerican.com/education>