Response from David Langford about Paying Students to Learn

On December 11, 2008 I posted an article written by David Langford about paying students to learn.

An anonymous person commented that there is research that says there are positive effects of incentive based programs. I forwarded that response to David and asked him if he was interested in responded. He sent me the following:

Thanks for passing along my article to those who might listen. Unfortunately we are fighting a losing battle with extrinsic manipulation. It is so easy to implement these programs it is hard to stop politians and administrators. The new pick for Education Secretary Arne Duncan is also an advocate of pay-for-grades and implemented such a program in Chicago. I am fearful we may see an escalation of this thinking during the Obama administration.

I read through each of the studies the person who responded offered. None were credible comparisons of the blatant manipulation offered in the Chicago Public Schools or in Washington D.C.

Offering girls in Kenya scholarships to continue to go to school if they work hard does not compare to throwing money at kids who get A's, in a fabricated rating system, when they are already guarenteed a free education: Apples and Oranges comparisons. The study from Texas cited on paying students to take AP courses I believe lacks credibility since in order to get the predicted results they wanted they changed systemic factors such as opening AP courses to anyone interested instead of doing what they had always done by limiting class size to class rank. This is only one of a multitude of problems in this study.

The real problem is not how to make a better buggy whip, but should we be making them to begin with. I know I could produce the same positive correlation to improved work by beating children if they do not work hard. But, should we adopt that as a program and then start improving it? Automating or improving a bad process just means you can do something very bad quickly and to a larger number of people. Maybe Harvard would like to promote that study since they seem to be the source of promoting these pay-for-performance programs. I like the line in the movie Jurassic park that goes something like this, "You were so busy trying to see if you could you forgot to think about if you should!"

All of these types of programs and studies take time away from studying and fixing the real problems. No child will say I don't work hard at school because they do not pay me enough, but they will say it's boring or my teacher dosn't care. Who will work on these problems? Let's work on the real problems preventing high quality work and effort instead manufacturing new problems.

I'm interested in hearing from others about this very important topic.

Rates of Change - What does all this mean for public schooling?

One of the arguments I have for re-inventing public schooling is the rapid rate of changes taking place in society. Schools and schooling are the most disconnected institutions we have on the planet. By disconnected I mean, what is taking place inside of schools is disconnected from what is taking place outside of schools.

Sure there has been a push to get technology into schools - but that technology has been viewed and used under the same fundamental operating principle that is driving all schooling (control and compliance) and the methodologies technology has been applied to are the same fundamental concepts as traditional teaching (sit and get; drill and practice).

There is a large amount of data from many sectors of our economy and society that demonstrates increasing rates of change moving towards exponential rates of change. We see increasing rates of change in global population, in consumption of resources, and increasing pollution. We see the same types of changes in the use of technologies like fax machines, cell phones, computers, and the internet. The amount of data being digitized and stored on computers somewhere in the world has followed a similar curve.

Over the last 100 years the system of public schooling (including colleges and universities) has changed some but very little compared to the rest of society. This gap, which we can call an Opportunity Gap, continues to grow. The longer we wait to make necessary changes the worse it will get. And this gap actually explains a lot of what people are experiencing today in public schooling.

Every organization in the world is facing the challenge of managing within this environment of rapid change. In the competitive environment the amount of pressure on companies to adopt and stay competitive is quite significant. Product life cycles for consumer electronics companies in some competitive markets have shrunk from 18 – 24 months to around 6 months and some companies complete the entire cycle from concept, through development, through to the end of a products life in that time period.

More significant for leaders and managers of organizations (especially large ones) is having an understanding of the impact this kind of environment has on ‘how they manage.’ How you manage in an organization that is moving fast – staying up to speed with the rate of change – is different from how you manage in an organization that is moving slower. And managing a slower moving organization that is attempting to close the Opportunity Gap is different still.

Partly because of the fact that schools have been kept separate from the rest of society, and partly because of the slow moving changes within the schooling system, the managers and leaders in that environment have not felt the same kinds of pressures as business leaders. Until recently society has not demanded these leaders to have the same kind of competence. But that luxury is quickly being eroded. Pressure from the outside is growing and the skill sets of school leaders will be challenged significantly.

Here's a short video that makes the argument for re-inventing schools better than I could with pages or writing:

Schooling ≠ Education

Based on recent learning and insights I've changed the name of this blog to Schooling ≠ Education. This new name reflects the most important and critical shift in thinking that is necessary for the reinvention of public schooling.

As noted in one of the first posts on this blog, it was back in 1999 that the first ideas for writing a book emerged. This first inspiration came after visiting with a small group of teachers and having conversations about topics I had thought were common knowledge (topics I had been talking to colleagues about for nearly 20 years at that point).

I was working in a unique and powerful learning environment that reflected an integration of physical space, technology and process. During the conversation we talked about the rate of change, complexity, structures and their influence on behavior, as well as the brain and how humans learn. The original name for this blog, There is No One Right Answer, was an attempt to break through what I call "the right answer syndrome" and get people to think.

Those same topics discussed back in 1999 are still, to this day, not common knowledge - or not knowledge enough to make a difference in what we are doing in our schools. Over the last ten years I have continued to ponder why making necessary changes and improvements in schools and schooling is difficult/challenging. Today my core theory is that most people make the mistake of confusing schooling with education. This mistake is prevalent around the world, in every country, in every walk of life, in governmental circles, in business circles, in churches and religious institutions, and in homes and villages.

My theory is that real, substantive, and necessary changes will not be able to be made until the people involved in schools and schooling make the mental shift and see that schooling is not equal to education. Until that time as that mental shift is made the necessary actions and requisite behaviors will not be made.

Hence, the new name of this blog, Schooling ≠ Education.

I will be persistent in urging people to adopt this point of view and this understanding in the desire to help people see that we will never get the kind of educational experience we truly want for our children unless we make this change first.

What The F**K is Social Media?

If there was ever any doubt, people involved in schools and schooling must see this SlideShare Presentation:

What The F**K is Social Media?

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: socialmediamarketing marketing)

Listed on Alltop

Wow! my blog is now listed on Alltop.

Not familiar with Alltop? Check out their site - they aggregate news and blogs under specific topic headings. Check it out.

Here's the area where I am listed - http://education.alltop.com/ (it's at the very bottom - but hey, at least I'm there).

Quality Learning: Paying students to learn?

David Langford is one of the smartest and best consultants I know working in the schooling world. His knowledge and experience of quality and it's application to schooling is beyond par. The following article came in a recent email newsletter from him. I couldn't say it any better! I've copied the newsletter in its entirety. Enjoy.

Quality Learning: Paying students to learn?
By David P. Langford

In the past, I believed most educators understood the inherent differences between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and valued the latter over the former. However, this does not seem to be the case. Pay-for-grades, gold stars, student-of-the-month programs and attendance rewards are all too prevalent extrinsic motivators used to push students to do a better job. I've found an overwhelming amount of evidence that these schemes do not work in the long term, and can even dangerously affect attitudes toward learning. (Alfie Kohn does an excellent job of compiling the evidence against extrinsic motivators in his books No Contest and Punishment by Reward.) There is no lack of evidence that pay-for-grades programs do not work, so why do schools continue to use them? The short answer is: because they appear to work.

Extrinsic rewards and punishments always seem to work if you do not count the costs. Studies have shown that you can get people to do almost anything if you make the motivator—payment or punishment--strong enough. For example, would you sabotage a colleague for ten dollars? Most people would answer “no.” But what if I upped the stakes? Would you do it for one thousand dollars? Ten thousand? One million? If I continued to increase the reward, most people would agree sooner or later--especially if they got to pick the colleague.

The same principle is true with students. If you pay students to get good grades, more students will get good grades for a while. Very quickly students who were only working to get the reward will discover that it is hard work to maintain good grades, and they will decide it isn't worth the effort unless the reward is increased, because the motivation for getting good grades is not to learn, but to be rewarded. The concept of "learning" to improve one's self never comes into play with the reward system. Just as teacher unions negotiate for higher pay, so student “unions” will eventually want to negotiate for a higher reward.

Extrinsic Theory: Improved Grades = Reward

Most always these reward schemes are touted as a “new trial program,” as if the idea of extrinsic motivation is a new one. In Washington D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who is making a valiant effort to improve a failing system, was asked why they implemented a "new" program that pays students to get good grades and attendance and she responded, "When critics say that it's sad to pay students, I say it's sad that only 8% of D.C. eighth-graders are proficient in math. People in the suburbs use incentives for their kids all the time, like giving them $10.00 for an 'A.' Kids in our program can save money for college or get a bank account." (Parade Magazine, November 16, 2008, p. 26.) It's unfortunate that we have such huge education gaps in this country and I am certain Chancellor Rhee feels the need to do something about it, but the bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some parents bribe their children to get better grades does not mean we should apply the same principle to all students. We can easily sabotage motivation through the best efforts of well meaning people.

If the pay-for-grades theory is correct, there should not exist a single example of students succeeding on their own. Yet there are thousands--if not millions-- of students who work hard because of a love of learning. Dr. W. Edwards Deming often stated that it only takes a single example to invalidate a theory. Having only 8% of students proficient in math is a dismal statistic to face, but the problem is in the system--not the students. Manipulating students with money will improve some students' performance for a short period of time, but what happens to students when you can no longer afford to pay them and their attachment to learning is for money? Smothering intrinsic motivation is a cost too great for even one student.

Intrinsic Motivation: Acquired Knowledge = Joy in Learning

When learning rewards and punishments are eliminated, systemic performance results will always return to what they were before extrinsic manipulation. Remember, 98% of the problem comes from the system, and students have little or no control over systemic factors. Manipulating student extrinsic motivators does not address the basic cause(s) of the problem. Try asking students with a Force Field Analysis to identify driving and preventing forces of learning, then prioritize the preventing forces with an NGT. You might be shocked to realize that existing factors preventing learning have nothing to do with lack of pay-for-grades. One of the most misguided efforts of quality improvement is trying to improve something that should be eliminated, such as automating grading systems, increasing training for behavior modification or improving the pay-for-grades program. I can guarantee you, in low performing schools there are fundamental problems with:

Teacher training and support
Leadership and management
Process Management
Communication
The way schools are built and maintained
The way technology is being used or not used
Funding for classroom books and materials
Vision and purpose


One of the reasons many extrinsic motivation programs have stayed around for so long and are continually resurrected and improved is because they are convenient for the people managing the system. They keep the focus off leadership and mistakenly place it on the people working in the system. In every education system I have consulted--from the U.S. Naval Academy to primary and secondary schools in the U.S. and Australia to pre-schools in Argentina--the story is the same: we blame students for poor performance without first considering the systemic causes. In psychology this is known as the fundamental attribution error.

If you want a significantly different result, you must first change the system. I applaud Michelle Rhee in Washington D.C. for trying to improve a broken system, and I offer my help. She has made many excellent systemic changes in D.C. such as closing 23 under-populated schools and paying for librarians, art, music and P.E. teachers at remaining schools. These systemic efforts will help to improve student motivation for learning.

Systemic problems are normally out of the circle of influence of students and none of these systemic problems will go away simply by bribing students to work harder within a failing system. Leaders must learn to, as Dr. Deming once said, "work smarter, not harder." If you want a different result, try changing the system and watch what happens to behavior, instead of continually doing what we have always done by leaving the system alone and trying to change the behavior of the people in it.


©2008 Langford International Inc. All rights reserved.
e-Mail: office@langfordlearning.com
12742 Canyon Creek Road, Molt, MT 59057
Phone: 406-628-2227 Fax: 406-628-2228

Drill and Practice becomes Drill and Test

With all this focus on No Child Left Behind and the ensuing testing culture that's been created I wonder how many people have noticed that the predominate methodology used in schools has gone from Drill and Practice to Drill and Test.

Drill and Practice is an instructional strategy developed and used for much of the history of schools and schooling. Many people feel the practice is out of date and not appropriate for meaningful learning to take place. On the other side of the argument, people that still support the idea of drill and practice as an effective teaching methodology suggest that repetition is necessary for the brain to 'wire' itself appropriately.

From a web site on instructional strategies:

As an instructional strategy, drill & practice is familiar to all educators... Drill-and-practice, like memorization, involves repetition of specific skills, such as addition and subtraction, or spelling. To be meaningful to learners, the skills built through drill-and-practice should become the building blocks for more meaningful learning.
http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/drill/index.html

From another web site:

Development of basic knowledge and skills to the necessary levels of automatic and errorless performance requires a great deal of drill and practice. . . . drill and practice activities should not be slighted as “low level.” Carried out properly, they appear to be just as essential to complex and creative intellectual performance as they are to the performance of a virtuoso violinist.
http://www.audiblox2000.com/repetition.htm

I believe the accelerating focus on testing has shifted teaching methodologies to be more akin to drill and test. Tests are taking up more time and focus in the school setting. Many people have complained that teachers are teaching to the test at the cost of learning.

So the old method of drill and practice is giving way to the new method of drill and test. Learning suffers as a consequence.

From a Carnegie Mellon article:

A recurring criticism of tests used in high-stakes decision making is that they distort instruction and force teachers to "teach to the test." The criticism is not without merit. The public pressure on students, teachers, principals, and school superintendents to raise scores on high-stakes tests is tremendous, and the temptation to tailor and restrict instruction to only that which will be tested is almost irresistible.

further it says:

There is a lesson here for teachers and assessment specialists alike. The tension between the instructional and assessment communities, as well the pejorative connotations that "teaching to the test" entails, will continue unabated so long as testing and assessment are seen as something quite apart from instruction and learning, rather than an integrated reflection of what was intentionally taught. To paraphrase A. G. Rud of Purdue University, what is needed is a deliberate attempt on the part of all parties to link curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards in a more generative and even transparent way.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for either of these methodologies. In fact, I don't recommend either methodology as being the right thing to do in today's environment. The purpose of pointing out what I think is happening is to support people to make conscious choices - to know what they are doing and why.

In today's world I recommend a whole person and brain based approach to learning - with the focus on learning NOT on teaching. Drill and practice is a good method for memorization but as I've said in another post memorizing is not the same as learning.

"Smart Drugs" for Young People

Making the mistake of thinking that schooling is education can lead to a very large number of additional choices that make sense in one context but are completely different in another context. If we continue to think about schooling the way we do we will force young people to do things they are not meant to do nor do they do naturally. 

Here's a perfect example of the kind of thinking that will ultimately lead to more problems than it solves. Researchers are predicting the development and use of 'smart drugs' for 'enhancing' the memory, attention, mood, or motivation of young people.

Think about this. These are the things that 'schooling' values and requires: memory, attention, mood, and motivation. 

The fundamental underpinnings of schooling has the need to control the behavior of the 'student' in order for them to demonstrate they can repeat the desired behavior (repeat behavior and also regurgitate desired bits of content to demonstrate both paying attention and the form a learning that is valued by schooling - memory).

In fact repitition is the primary tool used to 'teach' specific subjects. 

It makes sense then  that at some point people involved with schooling would conjur up the 'bright idea' to develop drugs as a tool to enhance the things that are valued.

These same things that are valued in the current schooling system are some of the primary reasons why there are so many dropouts. The reason why mood, motivation, and attention are lacking in the schooling system is because the experience is NOT interesting nor connected to any other aspect of young people's lives. Humans have a natural ability to pay attention and be motivated when there is something that is interesting to them. People will naturally remember what they 'learned' when the experience they have is both interesting and challenging, and has some emotional component to the experience. 

Here is the article that stimulated this blog post:

Schoolchildren could be given 'smart drugs' in a bid to boost brainpower
By LAURA CLARK - Last updated at 9:32 PM on 19th September 2008

Schools will soon have to ensure all pupils have access to brain-enhancing 'smart drugs', according to officially funded experts.

They said teachers risk claims of bias against poorer children if they fail to give all pupils the same chance to take a new generation of pills which boost attention, concentration and memory.

Researchers predict that within a generation, cognition enhancing drugs - or 'cogs' - will be so advanced that parents and teachers will be able to 'manipulate biology' to enhance pupils' brainpower.

---

It also predicted that within 25 years, so-called 'smart drugs' will be specific enough for pupils to choose drugs for particular mental faculties.

These could include improving memory, attention, mood or motivation.

Where are the people advocating for the interests of young people? How could we allow this thinking to continue and come to fruition. It is wrong and damaging. But without a change in thinking about the difference between schooling and education this kind of thing is almost inevitable.