Sometimes I think our problems in education come from a failure of nerve, not from a scarcity of good ideas. There are lots of good ideas floating around. But we're afraid to seize one and try it out because it's not perfect - and it might lead to some kind of difficulty. Or we abandon a good idea because it raises questions. That's what led us into the mess we' re in with tests. We got rid of essay exams because we were afraid they were "too subjective" and might lead to injustices in grading. So now we find ourselves stuck with these idiotic short-answer tests. The same thing will probably happen to ideas about student incentives. And yet there are some ideas out there that are worth thinking about.
The Washington D.C., school district came up with one recently. The D.C. schools didn't produce a single National Merit finalist this year - and this was embarrassing. So the district decided to use summer youth employment funds to pay 60 promising students minimum wage to attend school this summer. That's right, the district paid the kids to study English, honors algebra and test-taking skills. It wasn't a lot of money $3.35 and hour for a five-hour day. But it taught them that being smart can pay- a lesson many inner-city kids may not have a chance to learn. More important, these kids, who say they often feel defensive about being "nerds" and "grinds," got a chance to work and compete with other talented and motivated students. That's probably a much bigger benefit than the vocabulary and math they learned.
The British magazine, the Economist (29 July-4 August 1989), goes the D.C. schools one better by suggesting a hefty allowance to motivate inner-city students to work in school. The British have the same problems in producing an educated workforce that we do. And they've tried everything they can think ofto give poor and working-class children a better education - with no success. So, the Economist asks, why not use the "approach that usually works with grown-ups: bribery"?
Working-class children, he says, don't see any point in studying hard. Any benefit they might get is years in the future. And they don't believe in it anyway. Has education done anything for their parents? "The present value of future economic rewards from passing exams looks too small to persuade [the child] to spend another boring day taking his classes seriously." Sounds familiar. And so does the author's characterization of "middle class habits."
It's no problem for middle-class students, he says, to see the connection between schoolwork and success. And if they have any trouble, their parents are ready with generous bribes: "Bicycles and foreign holidays are standard pay-offs for doing well in school. The promise of a car has been known to work wonders with even the most air-headed offspring."
So why not imitate these middle-class habits with inner-city kids? The author suggests that local businesses might provide the budget for the bribes. And he advises really generous prizes for kids who get into university. The equivalent of a car? He doesn't say. But he thinks, "The results [of his plan] might just be astonishing."
He's kidding? Sure. But he's also serious. If a system of incentives that we accept without question works for one group of people, why not try it with another? Especially when it might get us something we need very much.
But incentives needn't all be positive. West Virginia has found an inspired negative incentive to keep kids in school. Kids who drop out or who miss 10 consecutive days without a valid excuse, lose their driver's license and are not eligible for another until they are 18. The law apparently brought back over 1500 dropouts this year. Obviously, just getting the kids back inside the school doors is not enough. We all know about in-school dropouts. But the law (which is being challenged) certainly makes the bad effect of dropping out immediate instead of long-term. And that's an accomplishment.
Some people who are reading this have already said "These are just carrots Shanker' s talking about" or "I don't approve of using sticks to motivate students." But I don't think we can reject these ideas on the basis of an unflattering metaphor.
Of course, there are problems with each of them. The difficulties of a young man from West Virginia who lost his driver's license when he dropped out of school to support his pregnant wife - also a dropout suggests that the law needs some fine-tuning. And any school district that adopted the Economist's plan would need to give some serious thought to methods of keeping kids from falling behind so they could catch up in order to get their cash payments.
But any suggestion for a way out of a complicated problem raises problems - maybe that solution could lead to some new fairness; maybe it will pinch somebody. That's not just true in education - it's true in every field. And it's no reason to allow ourselves to be paralyzed. The answer with incentives, as with any other new and promising idea, is to weigh its merits. If they seem to overbalance the problems, then you need to go ahead on the basis of good judgement and do the best you can. It's certainly more defensible than sticking with old and failed ideas.