Re: More on NYC Test Score "Bribes"and "Bounties"

["Watters, Elizabeth" <Elizabeth.Watters@tri-c.edu>]

he wasn't talking about family life, he was talking about educating children to become thinking members of a democratic society.  I see a difference.  As a mom, things aren't always majority rule in my house.
elizabeth

________________________________

From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org on behalf of aburke5054@aol.com
Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 10:36 PM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] More on NYC Test Score "Bribes"and "Bounties"



Big deal.  Lots of parents give their kids allowances or pay their kids
for things they do around the house.  American family life has not
exactly collapsed because of this instrumentalist enslavement to the
reign of behaviorism.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>?
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:29 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] 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

>