DEAR JAN: My son is in first grade, and his classmates receive candy rewards for clean desks, participating in gym class or reading, to name a few. While the idea of rewarding children for a job well done is fine, giving them candy sends the wrong message. The schools have an important job, which is to teach. This includes teaching about proper nutrition. There are too many studies that link poor eating habits to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and behavioral issues. What should a nutritionally conscious parent do?

— A mom

DEAR MOM: All parents and teachers use rewards as they guide, teach and train children to do a variety of tasks. There are social rewards and tangible rewards. Social rewards are ones delivered by the powerful nurturing people in children's lives that communicate a job well done: "Good for you!" "I'm proud of you; I hope you're proud of yourself."

This sort of recognition is important to kids whenever they accomplish a task, particularly for the first few times. As the task becomes a habit, your positive comments are no longer necessary.

When a child first learns his multiplication tables, social rewards delivered by mom, dad and teacher are important to the process. Saying, "You know your multiplication tables; good for you!" is enough to reinforce such mastery.

In time as the child uses her multiplication skills for various math problems, the child compliments herself inside her own head, "Way to go, you're awesome."

A sticker or toy is a tangible, extrinsic reward that might motivate a child to change a bad habit such as a messy desk to an organized one. Ultimately you want the child to learn the intrinsic reward of having a neat surface on which to work where you can find things, lowering confusion and frustration.

The issue of rewarding children with candy, sweets and desserts is generally not a good idea whether at school or home. Children need to tidy their desks, perform in gym class and read because it's expected and gratifying, not because there'll be a piece of candy at the end of the learning or performing stick.

To motivate a reluctant reader, one might offer a nonedible incentive, but in time a parent or teacher hopes that children will choose to read not for the prize at the end of the paragraph but because the reading material was interesting, the child learned something or was entertained.

Here's an example of the hazards of using food treats as an incentive. Let's say you're taking your 4-year-old child to the mall. You've got three quick errands to accomplish. You fear that your child will misbehave, so you say, "If you're nice at the mall — hold my hand and don't beg for toys — I'll buy you a treat afterward." The child behaves well so you buy him his treat of choice — an ice-cream cone.

Since this reward approach was effective, you use it over and over and a pattern soon emerges. The child only behaves well when he knows there's a sugared sweet incentive to do so.

Ten years later, the child sweeps the sidewalk and finishes a report for school. To reward herself she dishes up a great big bowl of ice cream. You probably see where offering treats for a job well done can easily lead.

If candy really would make better readers or tidier children, it's use still couldn't be justified because of the dangers of children learning to reward themselves with food the rest of their lives. Children need to eat when they're hungry, not because they've been good.

If teachers or parents need to use an external reward, they can offer an extra story, or a longer play time.

Jan Faull, a specialist in child development and behavior, answers questions of general interest in her column. You can e-mail her at janfaull@aol.com or write to: Jan Faull, c/o Families, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111.