[ Author Prev][ Author Next][ Thread Prev][ Thread Next][ Author Index][ Thread Index]
Re: More on NYC Test Score "Bribes"and "Bounties"
The instrumentalist argument, promoted by those in power, that "at
least the bribery/rewards approach gets these kids to do SOMETHING"
is used to PREVENT holistic intellectualist teaching for working
class kids. It's a key part of the mechanism for justifying the
reign of behaviorism as the most practical way to satisfy the demand
for instant test score elevation. The theme of this article is
"See? It works!" Of course, what "it works" means is that the kids
have been conned into focusing harder on the test prep curriculum so
that they'll get a few more predictable questions correct. But
they're not learning to read real texts for higher levels of
comprehension, nor are they learning the important conceptual aspects of Math.
God forbid they do stories about teachers who use interesting
curriculum and student-centered teaching to stimulate intrinsic
motivation and intellectual development. Numerous colleagues and I
did this kind of teaching for years in very low income schools, and
there is research lit on what such teaching and student engagement
looks like (ex: Luis Moll & co.: funds of knowledge); but such
teachers are being policed and driven out by the standardistas these days.
Obviously we can't count on the corporate media to talk about this,
as such reportage would undermine the high stakes/behaviorist
regime. So, how to get the story out to the public?
Pete Farruggio
At 12:06 PM 3/5/2008, you wrote:
On Mar 5, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Bob Schaeffer wrote:
The fourth graders squirmed in their seats, waiting for their
prizes. In a few minutes, they would learn how much money they had
earned for their scores on recent reading and math exams. Some
would receive nearly $50 for acing the standardized tests, a small
fortune for many at this school, P.S. 188 on the Lower East Side of
Manhattan.
When the rewards were handed out, Jazmin Roman was eager to
celebrate her $39.72. She whispered to her friend Abigail Ortega,
"How much did you get?" Abigail mouthed a barely audible answer:
$36.87. Edgar Berlanga pumped his fist in the air to celebrate his
$34.50.
I've always loathed explicit rewards and punishments with my five-
year-old daughter. I know that once you start down the road of side-
stepping intrinsic motivation and feeding extrinsic factors through
chocolate and swats to the behind, it's hard to reverse course. So my
wife and I have refrained, often to our short-term chagrin because
patient parenting is so much more difficult than simply controlling
and manipulating your children's behavior. My brother has his kids on
a short leash. They do whatever they are told. They have been
sufficiently trained to listen to him, fearing the lash or coveting
the candy bar. I don't blame him for raising his kids this way. I get
it. I see how much easier it is. Sometimes I wonder if I should raise
my kids this way . . .
But then I'm reminded of why we do it the way we do it. I got a taste
of the poisonous effects such Skinnerian techniques have with my
daughter's theatre class. The teacher told the kids that if they
learned their lines, she would give them candy. So when practicing
with her the other day, my daughter said, "When I learn my lines, I
will get candy!" I said, "Yeah, but if you learn your lines, you'll
also be able to have fun in the play." She said nothing. Did she
understand what I was saying? Or was she too busy thinking about what
kind of candy she would get?
I admit that It's a hard thing to get, to see that practicing and
memorizing your lines will eventually lead to an as-yet unexperienced
joy -- the thrill of performing live in front of an audience, being
in character, flowing with your fellow actors, pretending to be sad
or angry or -- in my daughter's case -- a flying taco. But I would
ideally like her to get this, to understand that practice and hard
work and being involved in a play are their own rewards.
Ultimately, I'm not worried. She'll probably get it. The candy reward
will be a nice treat, and it probably won't snuff out her nascent
intrinsic motivation. But that's because there are so few external
factors in her world right now that manipulate her choices, affect
how she views herself in relation to a world of possibilities.
Not so with these 4th grade kids at P.S. 188. For them, and for lots
of other kids, there's an inextricable link between learning and
external rewards (or punishments). It might seem like an
insignificant thing, and many would argue, "If the reward or
punishment gets them to do SOMETHING, isn't something better than
nothing?" But if you peel it back far enough for each kid, if you
undo all the decisions these kids made because they were rewarded for
approved behavior or punished for bad behavior, what would be left? I
suspect you'd have a kid that would experience the same sense of joy
I wish for my daughter -- the joy of practice and hard work and being
involved in something challenging as their own rewards. But because
the sugar-coated behaviorist tactics have been laid on so thick, have
been applied so consistently and so relentlessly, there's little
chance this will happen.
This means these kids have been short-changed, robbed of something
I'd consider to be one of the main benefits of our species.
Apologists claim it's done on their behalf. It's done to help them.
But, really, it's done to them because it's so much easier to control
them this way. Allowing kids' intrinsic motivation and inherent
curiosity to flourish would be rather messy. It would be hard to do
with classes of 25, much less 30 or 35 students. So, for the sake of
efficiency, we give them cash and cookies in exchange for their
cooperation.
Peter Campbell------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net
Post a Message to arn-l:
|
