By Tom
I read a fascinating article in Time magazine last weekend. It was about a Harvard economist named Roland Fryer, Jr., who ran an experiment on a bunch of public school children in which he set out to pay them to achieve in school. The actual experiment was fairly complicated and somewhat unique in the education world, since he actually used randomized control and experimental groups in hundreds of classrooms in four different cities.
The results were surprising, and again, somewhat complicated; but the bottom line was this: the kids who were paid to do the little things that they could control; things that we all know contribute to long-term success, did far better than the control group, both in the short term and the long term. Second graders, for example, who were paid to read books and answer comprehension quizzes, outperformed their peers by half a grade level on their summative reading test, and their success continued into the following year. On the other hand, the kids who were paid to achieve a long-term goal, like “getting a good grade,” didn’t; presumably because they were “flying blind,” unclear as to what they were specifically supposed to do.
I see three serious implications from this research. The first is uncomfortably obvious: we can get kids to succeed by simply paying them. Like most of you, I find the idea repugnant. I see learning as both an end and a means; being paid to learn is like being paid to visit with your family. But as distasteful as the idea is, you can’t really argue with the results. It apparently works. Fortunately, I suppose, we’ll never have to deal with that moral dilemma, since we can’t even afford to pay the teachers right now.
But speaking of families, students have been paid by their parents for good report cards for as long as there have been good (and bad) report cards. According to Dr. Fryer, however, parents have been doing it all wrong. Paying a child to “get good grades” doesn’t really make sense to a lot of kids. They probably don’t really know exactly what that means in practical terms. You and I might know that “getting good grades” means paying attention in class, taking notes, studying those notes, reading the required text, reviewing the text prior to each quiz, working diligently on projects and seeking additional help when necessary. But kids, young and old, don’t necessarily know all this. And besides, “getting good grades” involves a lot of factors that are truly beyond the control of many children. It involves having a good teacher, for example. It also involves having supportive parents. According to Fryer’s research, (and remember, he’s an economist) the best way to use money as leverage is to pay kids to do the little things. The things that are within their control. The things that they know how to do. And the things that lead to success.
Another serious implication of this research concerns the achievement gap. The students in Dr. Fryer’s study were overwhelming on the low side of that gap; mostly from inner city public schools. Teachers, by and large, come from the other side of the gap. We know what it means to “study for a test.” We know how to “work hard” and “practice.” Not all of our students, however, have the same understanding of those terms. In his book Beneath the Surface, Ken Pransky describes working with a group of English Language Learners and having them go home to practice a skill they had just worked on. The next day it was clear that they hadn’t done much work at all, even though they all claimed to have practiced it. When he probed deeper, he learned that his students didn’t really understand what “practicing a skill” meant. They didn’t know that you’re supposed to keep at it until you’re good. They didn’t even know that it meant doing it more than once. For them, “practice” meant “do it again.” Once. Perhaps Dr. Fryer’s study is reminding us that we need to teach the process of school to our students, along with the curriculum itself; especially to those students who don’t come from an academically inclined background.
So should we pay kids to get good grades? No. Besides, we can’t afford to. But their parents will; so let’s at least help them do it correctly. And let’s make sure our students actually know how to do the little things that lead to success in school.
We have had Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for students from poor areas (based on postcode area) and in post-compulsory education for about five years.
Such students get £30.00 per week and a twice yearly £100.00 bonus for good, punctual attendance and producing good quality work to deadline.
In practice a student needs to foul up quite badly not to recieve EMA but it often comes as a shock to such students that they don’t get their bonus.
In my experience EMA is viewed as an entitlement rather than a performance incentive. As such it doesn’t particularly motivate high achievement. It does however, get some students into college who perhaps wouldn’t ordinarily attend (even sporadically) at all. Then the work starts.
I am working really hard to help my students learn. Arne Duncan and President Obama seem to think I’ll work harder if I get merit pay for their achievement. How about me and the kids split the money?
DrPrezz… I agree, privileges. And I swear, recess would work in the high school as well…or maybe open campus!
I honestly don’t see a day whe we routinely pay students to achieve. We can’t afford it and most of us couldn’t stomach it. In the lower grades, though, we have the best extrinsic motivator of all to get kids to do their work: recess!
Well, using grades as a motivator for the kids which you describe is foolhardy at best. Something else has to be the incentive. Still, I wouldn’t use money, maybe privileges, but not money.
The only luck I’ve had in this arena is getting kids to talk about what they really want in life. If I can somehow link what we do in class with that vision, I can have some success. It’s not perfect, but I save more than I lose. Maybe the key is just the relationship I build with the student in class.
I think we need to acknowledge that different things will motivate different kids. Those mid- to high-achievers might have a better understanding that their present effort is a longer-term investment. It may not be “fair,” but is it fair to expect those unmotivated students to magically grow some intrinsic drive and continue to let them slide just because they haven’t?
I don’t think the pay for performance is ultimately realistic, but what it does illuminate is that we as educators toot the horn of lifelong learning, intrinsic motivation, blah blah blah, which is all 100% contrary to the way our society is constructed. I will not get my mortgage paid because I have the intrinsic motivation to improve the condition of my house. I will not get a better paycheck than the teacher down the hall just because I am meticulous in designing lessons because that gives me fulfillment.
For some kids, that intrinsic motivation during their school years will result in a scholarship, access to further education, or other doors which open. However, those kids are not the ones I’m concerned about in this scenario. I’m worried about the kids who never learn a work ethic because there is no immediate and tangible reward for hard work in our system. Those are the kids for whom F’s on a report card mean nothing, and whose habits of behavior when earning those F’s will result in the very real consequence of getting fired or locked into low-paying jobs when those same habits emerge in the real world. Kids need to learn that sometimes you have to work hard in order to get something. In the tangible sense, working hard in class nets the exact same tangible reward as not working at all. There is no immediate feedback either way. Those kids who get the As and Bs may get the intrinsic boost, but I firmly believe that an F does not motivate a kid who is already not motivated.
To me it really boils down to patterns of behavior. If at present, a kid doesn’t work, and the only consequence is a letter grade he/she doesn’t care about anyway, then that pattern of negative or failing behavior is not disenforced. That pattern of negative or failing behavior is thus never corrected, and continues in the work world, where there are very real consequences (pay cuts, firing) for the same behaviors.
How do we respond when a middle or high achiever asks why he is not paid for his grades? Do we only pay the lowest achievers?
To me, it just feels like a slippery slope.
On the flip side, there’s no way I’d be working right now if I weren’t earning a paycheck.
Granted, the contexts are totally different, but I don’t think that arguments against extrinsic motivation are convincing. We should want our kids to want something other than their present situation. We should want them to have a balance of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Without motivation to earn something (money, grades) they end up a burden to their society for their unwillingness to produce or put in effort by societally acceptable standards.
I think that there are some kids who utterly lack the intrinsic motivation to to well in school. When that happens, we need to shift our purpose: no longer are we living in that fantasy world of “life-long learners.” Sorry, that ship has sailed. Now we are talking economic survival…arming kids with the essential skills necessary to get them to that diploma or into that trade school–even if we’re arming them with those skills through coercion or force. It may not be “fair,” but I think that if kids show no intrinsic interest and are content to fail in school, perhaps there should be some monetary incentive. Why not a savings account they can manage (daily deposits to reinforce positive behavior, withdrawal penalties for misbehavior or failure to complete work) with end-of-academic-term payouts? It’s just like a time card in a job…you show up, you get the basic pay; you do well, you get a bonus; you don’t show up or do a crappy job, you lose pay. Isn’t that like the real world? It’s certainly more relevant to the real world than iambic pentameter.
I have also seen studies on this topic noting that the incentive must increase over time or else the paid students become complacent or dissatisfied with the reward. External motivation seems to require continued and increased rewards.
I still believe that we need to work on creating internally motivated students (knowing how difficult this may be).