How NOT To Tee Up The Issue Of Using Incentives To Motivate Students

Consider this my version of the controversial ESPN commentary show, "Rome Is Burning."

When I received my weekly issue of Time Magazine, I was speechless.  There is a picture of a student writing at her school desk, and there is what appears to be a pile of money resting on it.  And the headline is, "Should Schools Bribe Kids?"  Why did the editors feel the need to be so provocative? Everything aside, what does a headline like this say about the United States, and about capitalism in general?  Do we want to perpetuate the long-held international view of America as a bunch of greedy capitalists?  Now, back to the core issue.

Please understand that my issue is only with the research itself, not with the professor who oversaw the research.  While I do not know Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer, Jr., my professional colleagues have told me that his reputation is impeccable.  Recently, the DC Schools Chancellor, Michelle Rhee,  spoke at a local private school in Atlanta.  Long before she made her remarks, I blogged about how critical I was of her "ends justifies the means" approach to change.  I was very critical of one of the programs she tried, which was providing students checks in the mail for good grades.  This is 100% wrong, and I don't care how you try to defend its ultimate results.

In a speech I'm delivering on 4/24 at the Immersive Educatino Summit at Boston College, I will be discussing the importance of creating an "intrinsically motivating" learning environment.  From my friend and colleague, motivational psychologist Scott Rigby, "intrinsic motivation" relies on three core elements:  autonomy, competence and relatedness. 

1. Competence:  the need to successfully grow, extending our skills and efficacy
2. Autonomy:  need to experience opportunities for "action" and "choice"
3. Relatedness:  Need for meaningful connection to others, defined by others' support for our competence and autonomy

Schools must become intrinsically motivating environments, and it will take years for the country to see any results from the education reforms recently implemented by the Obama Administration.  It has been taught in every graduate course about game theory and use of incentives that financial incentives in the manner that this study was performed are not sustainable. 

Now please do not misconstrue what I'm saying here.  Today's students demand frequent rewards, and in the construct of online games, they "level up" or receive virtual currency and other benefits for mastering certain skills in the games.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving students a goal to attain, and providing them certain incentives if they achieve this goal.  For example, if the students meet certain performance criteria established by the teacher, they could earn some educational benefit, such as a field trip, or some other educational reward.  But in an impoverished community where it's obvious that these children are deprived of the economic benefits that they covet most in life, of course they will be motivated if an educator is dangling a wad of bills in their face!!  Did the experiment earmark EXACTLY what items the children could use the money for?  In its basic form, this research project was morally wrong and completely irresponsible and detrimental to the great efforts many educators and thought leaders are undertaking to try and systemically transform our educaton system. 

Is this the message we want to be teaching to our children?

I hope that the magazine receives the harsh criticism from its readers that it deservies.  Of course, I'm open to a civil debate about this and welcome my readers to weigh in freely.  I look forward to hearing from all of you.