Re: Monty for Nothing

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 Let's leave aside the questions of whether Roland Fryer forgot to talk to Alfie and whether it is really news that an economist and a psychologist disagree about human motivation for the really important issue here, what does the "Monty for Nothing" title of Monty's note really mean.? 




Could this be wish fulfillment on
Monty's part - seeing himself where there are dollar signs, as a response to FairTest's fading support from donors?? Or
could it be a Freudian slip, perhaps stemming from Monty's subconscious
realization that he's chosen the wrong side in an important civil
rights issue??? Or maybe it's a pun, a manifestation of
FairTest's well-known and uproarious sense of humor?? In any event, I'm sure all America would expect us to put this NCLB and the fate of children nonsense on hold until the
Monty-money issue is resolved.


Art





 





 



-----Original Message-----

From: GERALD BRACEY <gbracey1@verizon.net>

To: arn-l@interversity.org

Sent: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 8:00 am

Subject: Re: [arn-l] Monty for Nothing












Obviously, Fryer didn't talk to Alfie.?

?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>?


To: "ARN-L" <arn-l@interversity.org>; "arn2-strategy" 
<arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>?


Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:01 AM?


Subject: [arn-l] Monty for Nothing?

?


?


NY Times?


July 2, 2007?


Op-Ed Contributor?


Money for Nothing?


By BARRY SCHWARTZ?


Philadelphia?

?


NEW YORK CITY has decided to offer cash rewards to some students based on 
their attendance records and exam performance. Diligent, high-achieving 
seventh graders will be able to earn up to $500 in a year. The plan is the 
brainchild of Roland G. Fryer, an economist who has been appointed as "chief 
equality officer" of the city's Department of Education.?

?


The assumption that underlies the project is simple: people respond to 
incentives. If you want people to do something, you have to make it worth 
their while. This assumption drives virtually all of economic theory.?

?


Sure, there are already many rewards in learning: gaining understanding (of 
yourself and others), having mysterious or unfamiliar aspects of the world 
opened up to you, demonstrating mastery, satisfying curiosity, inhabiting 
imaginary worlds created by others, and so on. Learning is also the route to 
more prosaic rewards, like getting into good colleges and getting good jobs. 
But these rewards are not doing the job. If they were, children would be 
doing better in school.?

?


The logic of the plan reveals a second assumption that economists make: the 
more motives the better. Give people two reasons to do something, the 
thinking goes, and they will be more likely to do it, and they'll do it 
better, than if they have only one. Providing some cash won't disturb the 
other rewards of learning, rewards that are intrinsic to the process itself. 
They will only provide a little boost. Mr. Fryer's reward scheme is intended 
to add incentives to the ones that already exist.?

?


Unfortunately, these assumptions that economists make about human 
motivation, though intuitive and straightforward, are false. In particular, 
the idea that adding motives always helps is false. There are circumstances 
in which adding an incentive competes with other motives and diminishes 
their impact. Psychologists have known this for more than 30 years.?

?


In one experiment, nursery school children were given the opportunity to 
draw with special markers. After playing, some of the children were given 
"good player" awards and others were not. Some time later, the markers were 
reintroduced to the classroom. The researchers kept track of which children 
used the markers, and they collected the pictures that had been drawn. The 
youngsters given awards were less likely to draw at all, and drew worse 
pictures, than those who were not given the awards.?

?


Why did this happen? Children draw because drawing is fun and because it 
leads to a result: a picture. The rewards of drawing are intrinsic to the 
activity itself. The "good player" award gives children another reason to 
draw: to earn a reward. And it matters - children want recognition. But the 
recognition undermines the fun, so that later, in the absence of a chance to 
earn an award, the children aren't interested in drawing.?

?


Similar results have been obtained with adults. When you pay them for doing 
things they like, they come to like these activities less and will no longer 
participate in them without a financial incentive. The intrinsic 
satisfaction of the activities gets "crowded out" by the extrinsic payoff.?

?


An especially striking example of this was reported in a study of Swiss 
citizens about a decade ago. Switzerland was holding a referendum about 
where to put nuclear waste dumps. Researchers went door-to-door in two Swiss 
cantons and asked people if they would accept a dump in their communities. 
Though people thought such dumps might be dangerous and might decrease 
property values, 50 percent of those who were asked said they would accept 
one. People felt responsibility as Swiss citizens. The dumps had to go 
somewhere, after all.?

?


But when people were asked if they would accept a nuclear waste dump if they 
were paid a substantial sum each year (equal to about six weeks' pay for the 
average worker), a remarkable thing happened. Now, with two reasons to say 
yes, only about 25 percent of respondents agreed. The offer of cash 
undermined the motive to be a good citizen.?

?


It is as if, when asked the question, people asked themselves whether they 
should respond based on considerations of self-interest or considerations of 
public responsibility. Half of the people in the uncompensated condition of 
the study thought they should focus on their responsibilities. But the offer 
of money, in effect, told people that they should consider only their 
self-interest. And as it turned out, through the lens of self-interest, even 
six weeks' pay wasn't enough.?

?


Obviously, the intrinsic rewards of learning aren't working in New York's 
schools, at least not for a lot of children. It may be that the current 
state of achievement is low enough that desperate measures are called for, 
and it's worth trying anything. And we don't know whether in this case, 
motives will complement or compete.?

?


But it is plausible that when students get paid to go to class and show up 
for tests, they will be even less interested in the work than they would be 
if no incentives were present. If that happens, the incentive system will 
make the learning problem worse in the long run, even if it improves 
achievement in the short run - unless we're prepared to follow these 
children through life, giving them a pat on the head, or an M&M or a check 
every time they learn something new.?

?


Perhaps worse, the plan will distract us from investigating a more pertinent 
set of questions: why don't children get intrinsic satisfaction from 
learning in school, and how can this failing of education be fixed? 
Virtually all kindergartners are eager to learn. But by fourth grade, many 
students need to be bribed. What makes our schools so dystopian that they 
produce this powerful transformation, almost overnight??

?


Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, is the 
author of "The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less."?

?


Monty Neill, Ed.D.?


Co-Executive Director?


FairTest?


342 Broadway?


Cambridge, MA 02139?


617-864-4810    fax 617-497-2224?


monty@fairtest.org?


http://www.fairtest.org?


Donate: 
https://secure.entango.com/servlet/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk-------------------------------------------------------?


ARN-L archives:?


http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html?

?



-----------------------------------------------?


Report list problems to listmom@interversity.net?





 


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.