The Washington times., 1930-07-03

OOOk " OUT Oh me WhGu n Ulu
things / shouldn't. And I was
scared to try that again. I
learned what doing right was,
and I didd 1t, you bet and 1 want
my young ones to do It, too.
think Phil's just bent on spoil
ing them and bringing mp q
family Of gOOd-fOr-nOthings with
those crazy notions of his. /
hope you can back me up, and
say something that'H convince
him, before it's too Iate.. 1t sure
isn't a good thing for these kids
of ours to be See-sawing around
and arguing all the time about
the way they're to be treated.
Anyway, I'll do what you
say, Elsie. / think Phils wrong,
but I'll follow your advice, II
you'll give it. Which of us is
right? What's the best cure
for an Ornery kid? Punishment,
or praise?
"CHRISTNA SMITH"
Right Medicine
Punishment or praise? Well,
my dear, according to all re-
ports, praise is the right medi-
cine! And if given in the right
place. Little Rollo will eat it up,
and fish for more!
But did you read Longs story
of his little dog, Pat, in the Feb
ruary issue of Cosmopolitan?
If you've ever had an ornery
pup-or been one-that story
will reach right into the source
Of your chuckles and your tears.
Pat was a wire-haired terrier.
Oodles of it, and plenty Of sabe
but he just wouldn't house
break! And-well-!!??Sz6k!!
What to do? They had tried
all the time-tested recipes, but
Pat still remained untouched by
the niceties of convention, and it
looked-to the grief of the Long
family-as if either Pat or the
family must take the air. Then,
suddenly, an idea! They'd
praise Pat for being good Gf and
when) instead of Furnishing him
for being bad!
1T worked-worked like q
charm!" beams r. L., and pro-
ceeds to advise kindness for q
lot of critters besides pups.
The president of a famous ex-
perimental school in New York
recently tried the praise plan,
too.
He had the usual crop Of
ornery youngsters in his classes.
He also had two teachers who
were a problem-fine, brainy
women. Ambitious. But nag
gers. Orneriness became delib-
crate cussednesS under their
nagging. The youngsters sulked,
mutinied. flunked their studies.
The president, puzzled, then hit
on this scheme. He ordered two
tests given, one to each class.
When the results came in,
with the usual number of fail
ures, one teacher, Miss A, was
instructed to continue her usual
nagging of the delinquentS.
while the other, Miss B, was
told to refrain from nagging
and use her energy in prais-
ing those who had done we'll,
This was done and another test
was then given.
The result of the second test
proved that ali the children TIN
Ger Miss B had improved
while those under Miss A con-
tinued their low average. Think
ing it might be a case Of
teacher personality, tests were
then reVersed-MiSS A being in
structed to praise, and Miss B
to nag.
And regardless of the teacher,
the praised children improved
the nageed children fell down
on the lob.
Praise was obviously big medi-
cine-and punishment a flop.
The president had proved his
point - and incidentally the
two teachers had learned a
much-needed lesson.
Another Argument
There are a couple of argu-
ments for you, Christina. and
here's another which is even more
Recently, a certain commission
made an exhaustive survey of the
of juvenile delinquency
Much caustic comment had been
made about the sentimental han
ding" of youngsters. Many
claimed, just as you do. that
youthful bandits got that way be
cause they were coddled by
chicken hearted" papas and
mamas. So this commission went
through many reform schools,
jailS and penitentiaries, checking
up the life histories of criminals
from youngsters of II to hard
ened old men. And in practically
every case it developed that these
had been abused as
Children-slapped, whipped and
nagged into Sullen resistance
against parents and society.
There may be children who are
helped by slapping and whipping
Christina, but I have yet to see