Well, I’m at a loss to answer that; I don’t find either of those analogies particularly useful.
The whole point is (did you read my earlier posts?) that they are, at least to a certain extent, in control of each other’s actions; they are brother and sister in the same house, not complete strangers.
How about a third award system specifically for cooperation?
“Super-sunshine” points for when they’ve helped each other. Accumulation of these result in a reward that is shared, such as a trip to the zoo; individual points get individual rewards.
One thing that I have found as a teacher is that being physically involved in all the steps is a critical part of a system. I think you need to get a phyisical chart with little 'sunshine" stickers and little “pig” stickers" and make sure that whenever a child earns a point (of wither type), THEY have to go put the sticker on the chart. This will enhance the connection in their mind and serves as it’s own reinforcement. I think that next year I am going to make kids write their own zeros in my grade book when they don’t have an assignment.
As far as daily reinforcement goes, why don’t you give them each a simple after dinner task (since they are so little) like clearing off the dining room table or running around the house and picking up any toy that is out of place. For every “sunshine” point they have on that day’s chart, you help them for one minute (and they will be amazed how much you can do in one minute). For every “pig point” from that day, they have to do one thing (pick up one dish, put away one toy) from their sibling’s task list. Don’t do minutes here, or you will get chronic foot dragging.
Oh, and i left out the middle paragraph:
I think that seperate points are the better system, but that tattleing and egging poeple on are certainly offences that can gain pig points. FOur year olds are just too erractic for a sever year old to control: she’s not going to remember the times she egged him on, she’s gonna remember the time he cost her a treat when she wasn’t even in the room. And I think tha hte competitive thing is definitly a power to be harnessed. But you know your kids better than us and if you think that they way they already work together suggests that they can help ocntrol each other, then trust your gut.
Sounds fine to me.
Of course, from my experience, we devised any number of charts and reward/punishment systems, but soon failed to keep up with them regularly.
And you want to avoid this turning into some strict formula, where the kids are narc-ing on each other, or begging for sunshine points.
Any such system is incredibly subjective. So you can’t let the rules get too complex. And you and your spouse must retain sole decision-making and enforcement authority. The tricky thing is to avoid letting the reward/punishment/monitoring “system” become the focus instead of the desired behavior.
One thing that did work somewhat for us was to type up a system of “Jobs” for the kids. Very limited, but included such things as:
-do homework and get good grades;
-help out pleasantly when asked;
-maintain teir rooms and belongings;
-treat each other and each others’ belongings with respect.
The kids played a role in deciding what were desireable jobs/rules. At times it is mounted on the fridge. And when needed, we would ask the kids if their behavior comported with the rules.
Let us know how it works out.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I want to concur with those who said a week is too long a waiting period for kids to remember why they’re being punished. I’m certainly not an expert in child-handling, but a job I had this past summer made me sort of an apprentice of punishment techniques.
I worked at a kids’ day camp and we found that taking away minutes from their daily free swim time was the only way we could get them to behave. A few weeks into camp the other counselors and I decided that rather than taking off minutes every day, we would just keep a tally and they would lose their all their earned minutes on Fridays when they had a longer block of time in the pool (and when many of us had our day off and didn’t have to deal with enforcement 
).
We only did this for about one week because even the oldest kids (10-11) would act like we were committing war crimes against them when they had to sit out of the pool for 30 minutes on Friday for something they did on Monday and Tuesday. We found that early in the week, it was simply no deterrent to tell them ‘stop that or you’ll lose pool time on Friday.’ By Friday, they had no idea why they were being kept out of the pool.
For some of the youngest (6-8 yrs), even the end-of-the-day punishment seemed not to be immediate enough. There were a couple of kids who honestly did not understand that they were being punished for something specific, even when we reminded them that they had failed to clean up the arts & crafts just a few hours earlier or whatever.
Mangetout, I understand that you feel strongly that their behaviors are linked and their points should be as well, but let me add another voice to try to persuade you otherwise.
My younger sister was 4 years younger than me. She thought it was great fun (perhaps a sign that she had power) if she could get her older brother in trouble. She wasn’t really impressed with being in trouble herself. So (from a rational standpoint), getting older brother in trouble = Great Good, getting in trouble herself = minor bad, and if they were connected, the sum is still positive - getting us both in trouble was fine by her. Of course, that’s if she reacted rationally - if not, she just emotionally enjoyed getting us in trouble, and didn’t worry about future consequences.
For my part, anytime that we were going to get joint rewards/punishment, it was not worth my time to make an effort. I quickly came to realize that my sister would just counteract anything I did, so it would be a poor investment of time on my part to put extra work in.
On the other hand, there were times when we were each judged on our own behavior - generally, when my parents could witness us separately. In those cases, it was worth my time to behave and go the extra mile, because it would get noticed. By the same token, my sister at least misbehaved less, since it wouldn’t get me in trouble, so there was no fun in that. Overall, a net positive result in both our behaviors.
I loved my sister dearly, but honestly, she didn’t care what my parents thought, and was more than willing to take me down with her.
In addition, there is a more general message you are sending - if they are responsible for each other’s behavior, you are delegating that part of your parenting to them, which (I think) usually means giving the older one more responsibility. One child is not necessarily ready to take care of another (especially with a 3 year age difference). I know that a few years ago, my mother turned to me and said, “Don’t you think we did a good job of raising your sister?” Well, no, Mom. :rolleyes: For better or worse, I was only a kid, and don’t think I get the credit or the blame for how she turned out.
Take this as you will - they are your kids, and you know them better than anyone - but in general, I don’t think that group consequences for behavior are effective.
I take on board all that everyone has said about the dangers of linked rewards; I’ll obviously be closely monitoring the success or otherwise of the scheme and I’ll modify it quickly if it doesn’t work; another problem with competitive evaluation though, is the accusation of favouritism… we’ll see how it goes.
I agree with this.
My brother and sister and I did spur each other on sometimes - but not always. When it came to fights, you’re right “(s)he started it” isn’t something that you want to encourage.
But we really didn’t have control over whether the other ones picked up the toys, or brushed their teeth, or answered rudely to an adult.
If Stephanie isn’t even in the room when David starts jumping on the furniture, why should she get punished? If Stephanie decides sweets on Saturday isn’t enough of a reason to do her homeworks, I highly doubt that at seven she’ll think “Well, that wouldn’t be fair to David. That will make him lose his candy, too.” And if David has annoyed her earlier that day, she might do it just to spite him. (And I highly doubt her 4 year old brother is going to be able to convince her do it.)
It could very easily lead to the situation where the one who cares less about the reward/punishment is going to use it to manipulate the one who cares more. They shouldn’t be that directly responsible for each other.
Sounds like you have your mind made up. Good luck with it.
The way I see it, the way to deal with this issue is to ignore it: if a fight happens, they both take the blame: after all, it takes two to fight, and learning to walk away when someone else is picking a fight is one of the most valuble things you can teach a person. Obviously, if one kid is particularly talented at pushing the other kid’s buttons, you may need to intervene more directly, but for normal bickering, I think that making both people responsible for a fight–whoever started it–is a good idea.
As far as favoritism goes, that issue is going to raise its ugly head no matter what: it can’t be avoided in a family with more than one child. My own parent’s solution was sort of like judo: instead of trying to be perfectly “fair” (a standard that opens up all sorts of debates about what “fair” means), they were very up front about the fact that all their children were individuals and punnishments and rewards and standards were tailored to what that individual needed. Because they loved us all the same–and they made that clear in a million differnet ways, not the least of which was simply telling us that–it never botherered me that my parents had different expectations for my siblings and I: for example, as a baby my sister was cripplingly shy. When she got lost in Walmart at about the age of five, she did what she was told to do if she got lost (stayed where she was), but hid in the middle of a clothes rack. If I’d done that, I’d of been in trouble, because if I’d done that, it would have been out of absent-mindedness–something I could, and needed to, work on. Meg’s social anxiety was so high that not hiding would have been impossible for her, and my parents didn’t punish her beyond a mild reprimand. Didn’t bother me. I knew they loved us the same, and that’s all that mattered.
The same thing is true for your kids: there is behavoir that is “bad” in a seven year old is simply a learning experience for a four year old, and I am sure that your kids have personality quirks that also make objective standards counterproductive. If they cry “that’s not fair”, tell them that they are differnet people, you love them both the same, and as a parent you make your judgements based on what’s best for each.
I’m no child psychologist. but I think that kids will only play the favoritism card if they see that it works, and it will only work as long as you believe that you ought to treat your children the same, and that they may have a valid complaint. They’re different people ,you love them both with everything in your heart, and treating them as individuals is a perfectly reasonable and responsible thing to do.
Since the linked rewards issue has been dealth with, I just had one minor issue with semantics. Another poster said she liked the names of the points, “Sunshine” and “Pig” points.
MHO is that “Sunshine” is fine for positive, but “Pig”… ehhh, not so fine. Are you trying to send the message that you think your children are pigs? Are pigs inherently bad? What, exactly, is so wrong with pigs that the mere name represents bad behavior? I suggest something that’s more in line with the opposite of “Sunshine” for negatives… like “Rainy” points vs. Pig points. (Sunny days = good, rainy days = bad)
When my parent used words like that to describe behavior, I was too little or too immature to make the distinction that they weren’t describing me and took it personally. Example: my dad use to try to encourage us to go outside to play by saying, “Why don’t you go outside and get the stink blown off ya?” To me, this meant my dad thought I was stinky and not even good enough to play inside the house. Using words like that really goes toward damaging one’s self image, IMHO. Negative labels were certainly effective in tearing down my self esteem. I didn’t believe I was smart or special or could do anything right until I grew up and moved out of my dad’s house. I was certainly a grown up before I realized that my dad does not really think I’m stinky… (mental note: check on that.)
Just something to think about.
This may have been just me, and IANACP, but isn’t using food as an incentive a bad idea? For me, one of the side affects was to associate various and sundry unhealthy food items as desirable and to be sought out later in life, with predictable consequences.
The name ‘pig’ points arose out of my search for a suitable graphical symbol for the chart; I was originally going to have a happy smilie and a grumpy one, but I accidentally stumbled over a pig smilie and it caught my attention, then the happy smilie search turned up a happy sun and it all took shape from there.
No, I have no intention to extend it to any kind of name calling, but there is an undeniable link to the unpleasant grumpy depiction of a pig and unpleasant grumpy behaviour.
I don’t think it is a huge problem.
Kid 1 jumps on bed.
Kid 2: Stop it! you’ll get us in trouble!
Kid 1: Wee! Make me!
Kid 2 obliges.
Parents enter into WWIII and both children insist (correctly, actually) that the other started it. Kid 1 got to jump on the bed and gets in trouble for it. Kid 2 had good intentions, to enforce the rules, but few parents actually want their seven year olds acting as the family enforcer.
They can’t control each other’s behavior. They may be able to affect it at times, but teaching them that their own actions are their sibling’s responciblity is something I’m pretty uncomfortable with.
I got in enough trouble for things my brother did that I am VERY leery of any system where their points are linked. I was the older one, you see, so I should have stopped him. Even with eight years’ superiority, it didn’t work.
The points idea is good, though I’d make it a daily thing, with weekly rewards after that. Our dogs – and I am NOT insulting your children here – are a lot like two-year-olds in some ways. If they do something they aren’t supposed to, and you don’t catch them RIGHT THEN AND THERE, then there’s no point in punishing them later. They just don’t make the connection. I suspect a four-year-old is just barely starting to be able to make those connections. I wouldn’t push that over a week.
This is NOT fair. Each child needs to be responsible for their own actions. It’s simply not fair to punish one for the misdeeds of others.
I think I may have come across as overly-defensive of my master plan, especially to you, Khadaji; sorry about that.
Chalk up one pig point for me.
It will be under constant review; for the kids today it has worked quite well; two sunshine points (dinner and teeth), one pig point (picking daffodils from the garden again); I can’t remember exactly what it was about, but a couple of times today Stephanie has encouraged David to do the right thing, reminding him of the consequences.
I clearly need to put in place some daily rewards, but I don’t want it to be confectionery - so far I can only think of ‘extra story at bedtime’ - Any other ideas?
When so very often their misdeeds spring directly from encounragement or baiting from the other one, it is fair; I’m not punishing them both for the misdeeds of the one, I’m encouraging them to work together in harmony.
Must it always be seen in a negative perspective?
I really like the “reading as positive reinforcement” approach. It gives you a reinforcer, and give the kids the impression that reading is a good thing, a reward, and something to be worked for. Extra story at bedtime? Great idea.
You might even add in the possibility of losing the bedtime story altogether, if the Pig Points pile up too high. Also consider saying that the kid with the most Sunshine Points at the end of the day gets to choose the story. Maybe even have a monthly contest where if the kids have met their goals, they get to go with you to the bookstore and pick out new books for the next month.
But I do have to go into the “not sure about linked points” column. I had a brother whose biggest joy in life was making my life miserable, and this would have been a wonderful chance for him to bully me. Putting that kind of power into a sibling’s hands is dubious; and keep in mind that even though you’re watching for it, kids are great at hiding sibling rivalry stuff from parents.
Good luck. It’s great to see a parent putting this kind of thought into this. They must be some seriously special kids.
