HOME-SCHOOL TOKEN ECONOMIES : BRIDGING THE COMMUNICATION GAP

THOMAS N. FAIRCHILD

The University of Idaho School token economy systems are being employed with a variety of children in a variety of settings. Although their utility has been proven, additional benefits accrue when home-school token systems are used. These benefits are discussed, as well as the steps necessary towards implementation of these sys- tems. Two case studies of elementary children are shared as practical exam- ples of implementing home-school token economy systems.

Token economies are not a novel idea. They have been employed with a variety of children in a variety of settings. Their values in working with emotionally disturbed or behaviorally disturbed children (Ayllon & Roberts, 1974; Moser, 1974; Richard, et al., 1973), learning disabled children (McKenzie, et al., 1968; Wadsworth, 1971), educable mentally retarded children (Dalton, et al., 1973 ; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973), and regular class children (Hodges, 1972; Koch & Breyer, 1974) have been well documented. Token economy systems also have been designed for the home and school (Bailey, et al., 1970; Coleman, 1973; Dickin- son, 1974; McLaughlin & Malaby, 1974), showing that behavior can be controlled in one setting by administering reinforcers in another. The home and school co- ordinate their efforts to manage the child’s school-related behaviors. Vannote (1974) carried the token economy concept one step further. He solicited cooperation from commuiiity leaders and businessmen to reduce or eliminate costs of various activities in the community. In this study, students were receiving their reinforcers in the community rather than in the home.

BENEFITS OF HOME-SCHOOL TOKEN ECONOMY SYSTEMS When dealing with learning and/or behavior problems of children, we are

concerned with extinguishing inappropriate behaviors (behaviors that interfere with optimum learning and adjustment), and reinforcing appropriate behaviors (behaviors that facilitate learning and adjustment) via the token economy system. However, numerous other benefits accrue when home-school token economies are implemented.

First, home-school token economies improve communication between the home and the school and increase parent involvement. In order to implement successfully a token economy between the home and the school, it is mandatory that parents and school personnel meet and discuss the advisability and feasibility of implementing such a program with a particular child. The decision-making is shared. Decisions to be made involve determining the appropriateness of the system for the particular child in question and the parents’ responsibilities for implementing the system a t home. Parental involvement in the decision-making is critical be- cause it communicates their acceptance of the decision, their investment in it, and their willingness to share in the responsibility of carrying i t out. Without their

Requests for reprints should be sent to Thomas N. Fairchild, College of Education, University of Idaho, MOSCOW, Idaho 83843.

I .

463

464 Psychology in the Schools, October, 1976, Vol. I S , No. 4.

consent and involvement, the system is inoperable. Communication is further improved because the system demands continual feedback from both parties in order to monitor the efficacy of the system, and make modifications. Communica- tion is also enhanced by the specificity of the system. Instead of a general approach of let’s improve Johnny’s academics, the target behaviors delineate exactly what behaviors are the focus of attention, i. e., let’s improve attending skills, or task completion, or help Johnny master his multiplication facts, or reduce his verbal outbursts in class. Defining the target behaviors and outlining intervention strate- gies minimizes the ambiguity of what it is that is going to happen. Everyone knows exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

Another communication advantage of the token economy system is that parents receive daily feedback, via the tokens, regarding their child’s behavior in school. Thus, they receive immediate feedback regarding the effectiveness of the system. Although parents can be extremely valuable resource people, their value often is not realized. On occasions when their usefulness is recognized, they are not contacted soon enough to provide corrective action. For example, a student may be engaging in numerous inappropriate behaviors in school. He or she may be belligerent and disruptive in the classroom. The school may employ consequences such as removal from the room, detentions, etc., but contacting parents is generally the last resort. The writer contends that school personnel should contact parents as a first resort. Parents can employ consequences that may be more meaningful t o the student.

2. The second benefit concerns reinforcement and feedback. The student is bombarded with positive reinforcement, which not only reinforces the appro- priate behaviors, but bolsters the child’s self-esteem. The system requires both social reinforcers, and activity reinforcers or tangible reinforcers. When appro- priate behavior is observed, the teacher should verbally show satisfaction or approval (social reinforcer) and give the child the token reinforcer. Upon returning home the child again receives social reinforcement (praise and encouragement) regarding his or her progress and then activity or tangible reinforcement in exchange for the tokens.

3. Another benefit of the home-school token economy over the school token economy is that the student recognizes that the home and the school are putting up a united front. The increased communication makes it difficult for the student to play both sides against each other.

4. A major benefit to the school is that it minimizes management problems for the teacher because the teacher is not required to provide reinforcement a t school. It becomes unnecessary to t ry to devise a menu of activities and tangible reinforcers which would appeal to a variety of students. This becomes the parents’ responsibility. Another problem which home reinforcement avoids is the perceived discrimination by other students when the teacher awards goodies and privileges to a few select students. If Billy receives a trinket every time he completes a book, Susan will wonder why she shouldn’t receive a trinket when she completes a book. When one child is receiving tokens, other students may be curious why, but their curiosity will be satisfied by a response indicating that the tokens are to inform Billy’s parents of his progress so they can reward him for his efforts. The children cannot complain about discrimination because the teacher is not discriminating.

Home-School Token Economies 465

IMPLEMENTING THE SYSTEM Questions arise concerning for whom the systems are designed, and how they

are implemented. Many parents and educators react negatively to the idea that students should

receive tangible reinforcement for learning. It is perceived as “paying a kid to learn,’’ “bribery,” and “making deals with children.’’ The writer has been in both the pro and con reinforcement camps, but the camps were discarded in favor of children. No one can dispute the concept of individual differences-that each child is unique. If one accepts the concept of each child’s uniqueness, one must accept the fact that children have unique motivational styles. Some children are intrinsical- ly motivated and gain satisfaction from succeeding and learning, while other children are extrinsically motivated; their motivation to achieve is contingent upon reinforcement from outside of themselves. Some require social reinforcement; this can take a variety of forms, such as praise, encouragement, recognition, and approval. Others achieve more effectively if activity reinforcers are available. Activity reinforcers include games, free time, interest centers, and privileges, such as T.V., playing outside, having friends over to spend the night, going to a movie, etc. For other children tangible reinforcers, such as food and trinkets, are necessary.

The important thing to recognize is that everyone requires reinforcement. Reinforcement can be good or bad depending upon whether or not i t is used appro- priately. For example, if a child is achieving well with the typical social reinforcers, it would be inappropriate to begin giving him or her tangible rewards for behavior in which he or she engages without tangible rewards. That would be a misuse of reinforcement. Conversely, if a child does not function effectively with social reinforcers, activity and/or tangible reinforcers should be considered. What must be considered is the particular child’s motivat,ional needs. Different children require differing types and differing amounts of reinforcement.

Several steps should be followed in order to implement effectively a home- school token economy program :

1. Identification of target behaviors which need to be extinguished or rein- forced. Select only one or two behaviors to work on a t a time. Do not try to do everything a t once.

2. Scheduling a parent conference to encourage their cooperation and in- volvement.

3. Suggesting reinforcement ideas with parents and agreeing upon a manage- ment system realistic for all concerned.

4. Monitoring the effectiveness of the system and making changes when indicated. For example, if behavior or learning is not improving after the home- school token economy has beem implemented, one must consider the pay-off schedule being employed and the reinforcing qualities of the reinforcers. A particular tangible reinforcer may be reinforcing for a period of time and then suddenly lose its effective- ness. An alternative will have to be discovered. Menus are one means of avoiding this problem, because a variety of reinforcers are made available; this allows the child to select the reinforcement most meaningful to him or her. Monitoring the system is extremely critical. Many times teachers and parents will say that they have

466 Psychology in the Schools, October, 1976, Vol. 13, No. 4.

tried reinforcement programs and tha t the programs were ineffective. Further inquiry indicated that the breakdown occurred because of improper management, or the use of reinforcers which had lost their reinforcing qualities. The system does work if it is designed and managed properly.

CASE STUDIES I n the writer’s experience as a school psychologist, numerous opportunities

were available to help teachers and parents employ home-school token economies. The following two case studies were selected from the writer’s files to provide examples of how home-school token systems might be designed.

Case Study 1 A kindergarten boy was referred by his classroom teacher because of inap-

propriate classroom behaviors. The child was described as being continually out- of-seat, not attending when other children or the teacher were speaking, and in- terrupting when others were talking. The target behaviors were identified as attending skills and responding skills.

The home-school token economy system was designed in the following manner. The kindergarten program was divided into six activities. When the child listened attentively, remained seated, and did not interrupt others during one activity period, he could earn a ticket. Thus, six tickets could be earned each day. If the child received five tickets a day he received a card which was taken home and exchanged for reinforcers. The card communicated to the parents that their child had behaved appropriately in school that day.

The reinforcement system designed at home required that the child receive a card each day during the week. If the child earned five during the week, he was allowed to select an activity from the following list: archery, bowling, movies, roller skating, or staying up late for T.V. with popcorn and candy.

The effectiveness of the system was reflected in the drastic change observable in the target behaviors identified. Prior to the parent conference during the seventh week of school, the child’s behavior was inappropriate each school day. The base- line was described as 30 school days of inappropriate behavior. The token system was employed for the remainder of the year. During this time, the remaining 150 school days, there were only twelve days when the child did not earn a card.

Case Study 2 A second-grade boy was referred because of slow progress in the individualized

reading program. At the time of the referral, one month of school had elapsed. During these 19% school days the student had completed reading only 58 pages in a programmed reading series for an average of 3 pages per day. A token economy was implemented in October, and each day the child received a token which in- dicated on i t the number of pages read that day. The value of the token was directly related to productivity. Parents rewarded the boy a t home with bubblegum cards; on any day that the boy read 20 pages he received one card. Then for each addition- al 5 pages beyond the minimum 20 pages read, the boy would receive one “bonus” card. During the 93% school days elapsing between the beginning of October and the end of February, the boy read 2,053 pages, for an average of 22 pages

Home-School Token Economies 467

a day. Although the home reinforcers were terminated a t the end of February, the boy continued to receive a card each day indicating the number of pages he had read. The card itself and approval from the teacher and parents (social re- inforcers) had replaced tangible reinforcers and sustained the boy’s efforts. The number of pages read daily during the week following termination of home re- inforcement were: 50, 50, 63, 83, and 93. On three separate days the boy read more pages than he had read during the entire month of September, thus this home-school token economy system was extremely effective. The problem was not one of difficulty in learning to read, but one of motivation and attending skills. At the beginning of the year the boy was at the bottom of the class in terms of the number of pages completed in the programmed readers, while a t the end of the year he was near the top.

Many critics argue that when token systems are used to extinguish inap- propriate behaviors they serve only as a “band-aid” for problems which are more complex. The writer does not support the notion that behavior management programs should be used in isolation as the sole means of intervention. Possible underlying causes or extrapersonal factors which may be contributing to the prob- lem need to be explored and alleviated.

REFERENCES AYLLON, T., & ROBERTS, M. D. Eliminating discipline problems by strengthening academic per-

formance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, Y, 71-76. BAILEY, J., WOLF, M., & PHILLIPS, E. Home-based reinforcement and the modification of pre-de-

linquents’ classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 223-233. COLEMAN, R. G. A procedure for fading from experimenter-school-based to parent-home-based

control of classroom behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 1973, 11, 71-79. DALTON, A. J., RUBINO, C. A,, & HISLOP, M. W. Some effects of token rewards on school achieve-

ment of children with Downs Syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 251-259. DICKINSON, D. J. But what happens when you take that reinforcement away? Psychology i n the

HODGES, W. Role of rewards and reinforcements in early education programs. Journal of School Psychology, 1972, 10, 233-241.

KNAPCZYK, D. R., & LIVINGSTON, G. Self-recording and student teacher supervision: Variables within a token economy structure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 481-486.

KOCH, L., & BREYER, N. L. A token economy for the teacher. Psychology i n the Schools, 1974, 1 1 ,

MCKENZIE, H. S., CLARK, M., WOLF, M., KOTHERA, R., & BENSON, C. Behavior modification of children with learning disabilities using grades as tokens and allowances as back up reinforcers. Etceplional Children, 1968, S4, 745-7.52.

MCLAUGHLIN, T. F., & MALABY, J. E. The utilization of an individual contingency program to control assignment completion in a token classroom: A case study. Psychology in the Schools,

MOSER, A. J. Effectiveness of tokens as secondary reinforcers with emotionally disturbed children. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology, Methods and Therapy,

RICHARD, H. C., MELVIN, K. B., CREEL, J., & CREEL, L. The effects of bonus tokens upon produc- tivity in a remedial classroom for behaviorally disturbed children. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4,

Schools, 1974, 1 1 , 158-160.

195-200.

1974, 11, 191-194.

1974, 20, 43-46.

378-385. VANNOTE, V. G. A practical approach to behavior modification programs. The School Counselor,

1974, 21, 350-355. WADSWORTH, H. G. A motivational approach toward the remediation of learning disabled boys.

Exceptional Children, 1971, 38, 33-42.