Comments on: Response from David Langford about Paying Students to Learn

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:34:18 +0000

First, it's not accurate to lump all incentive programs together and make generalizations about their effectiveness. Incentives program differ in how they recognize behavior/outcomes and how they reward them (i.e. cash vs. pizza parties vs. points). The most effective are those that recognize incremental achievements among parents, peers, teachers – helping students, particularily low-performing students, build their confidence and competence. In essence, it could be considered extrinsic "manipulation" with positive academic improvement as the ultimate outcome.

Second, you mention that these programs take away efforts focusing on the "real problems"… are there not multiple strategies to accomplish student achievement? After all, each student is unique – therefore, you would think multiple approaches would be the most logical path to success.

By: Grace

Grace — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:02:00 +0000

As a teacher of some 20 years, and as a devotee of progressives like John Taylor Gatto, A.S. Neill, Maria Montessori, Jerry Jessness, Socrates et.al., I would relish the chance to support the idea that extrinsic motivation does not produce educated people.

Teachers are supposed to "understand" the politics of education, we say we support democratic values, that literacy is a foundation for these values, then we put a system of constant monitoring and manipulation in place and tell students that they are free.

Teachers who don't go along are drummed out, usually with such thorough discrediting and personal attacks, that these valuable educators are lost.

Arnie Duncan is a frightening choice, but Obama has also revivified Alan Bersin, despite and with no mention at all of his "work" in education.

We needed Obama to be sincere about the American Bill of RIghts, but meet the new boss, [maybe not] the same as the old boss.