Use of normative peer data as a standard for evaluating classroom treatment effects.

The team worked with two fourth-grade boys who were in a special class for disruptive students.

They used a token economy. Kids earned points for finishing math problems and for sitting, raising hands, and following directions.

After rates looked good, the boys moved back to the regular class. The researchers kept tracking for seven to twelve weeks.

Both boys quickly reached the same on-task and work-completion levels as the average kids in the regular room.

Most important, the gains held after the switch. Teachers said the boys now "fit in" and no longer stood out.

Hursh et al. (1974) first showed that peer tutors can run point systems. Renne et al. (1976) adds the next step: check the tutored kids against class norms before you call it a win.

Anger et al. (1976) ran a similar token plan but sent the points home. Both studies cut problem behavior, yet only M et al. proved the kids now acted like regular peers.

Koegel et al. (1992) later used video self-checks instead of adult charts. Both papers push the same idea: let students see how they stack up against normal class levels.

You now have a simple rule. When a child’s data lines up with the class average for at least two weeks, it is safe to fade the extra help. No guesswork. The peer line gives teachers, parents, and administrators a clear, fair finish line.