Toxic Rewards
If your child comes home flat, quiet or fixated on points, it may not be them. It may be the design of the system that scores them every day.
Nobody gave this child a single negative. They are still bottom of the board.
Reported effects
Parents describe the same things again and again. Count how many you recognise.
If you recognised several of these, it doesn't mean your child needs more points. It means it's worth asking what the system is doing.
The design
Each of these has a fair reason behind it. Each also has a cost the reason doesn't mention.
The school says: points motivate.
For a while they do. But children who expect a reward for something they already enjoy tend to enjoy it less afterwards. In the classic 1973 study, children who were rewarded for drawing later drew less on their own. The task stops being the point. The points become the point.
The school says: we never punish, we only reward.
But a board is a comparison.
Zero is only neutral on its own. On a board, next to everyone else's ten, zero is a negative — and it's the one nobody has to justify.
The school says: it's transparent, and it motivates.
A visible ranking turns behaviour into a contest with one winner and twenty-nine losers. Children learn their place in the class, and so does everyone else.
The school says: we recognise effort.
The quiet, compliant child is easy to miss, and the reward goes to whoever the teacher happens to see. Children learn the lesson: behave when someone is watching.
The school says: consequences matter.
A child who loses points on Monday can still be carrying them on Friday. A small slip can follow them all week or all term, and it is often for fidgeting or dawdling rather than harm.
The school says: the system is consistent.
Parents say it depends on how each teacher hands points out, or when they remember to. Two children behaving the same way can end up with very different scores.
A note on teachers
Nothing here is aimed at the person standing at the front of the room.
This isn't about blaming teachers for using a tool they were handed and trained to trust. It's about asking whether the tool was ever properly asked to justify itself.
Who it hits hardest
Reward systems don't land on every child the same way. Children with SEND, and children from groups that are already sanctioned or excluded more often, are more exposed to a system that scores behaviour. Being late, losing equipment or forgetting homework can cost points even when the cause is a difficulty rather than defiance. The pattern isn't simple: some groups are excluded far more often than average and others far less. That's a reason to look at the data, not to assume.
Does that mean our schools are effectively punishing kids for their disabilities?A parent
Read the briefing for governors, SENCOs and school leaders →
Sources
Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137.
Children who expected a reward for drawing later drew less in their own free time than children who weren't rewarded.
Manolev, Sullivan and Slee (2019). The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo, surveillance and a performative classroom culture. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 36–51.
Examines how ClassDojo turns everyday behaviour into data that is watched and performed.
Mittiga, Freeman, Leif, Furlonger and Pattison (2024). Behavior change potential of classroom behavior management mobile applications: a systematic review. Education and Treatment of Children, 47, 83–104.
Reviewed 15 studies of classroom behaviour apps. Results were mixed, and the authors say the evidence isn't enough to recommend the apps as stand-alone tools.
None of this proves that any one child has been harmed. It shows the questions are fair ones.
Stay updated
Tell a child what they did well and why it mattered. The problem is scoring, ranking and taking away.
Ask the question. Eight questions to ask your school →
Occasional updates only. Unsubscribe at any time.