The Hanover Collaboration

There two ways to change performance. One is to create rewards and punishments to create an incentive for the desired change. The other is to figure out why someone is doing what he or she is doing and then try to make it easier for the person to do the desired thing. Usually the first has to do with behaviors associated with will and choice and the second when there are physical (or other) limitations.

In education, you see both of these methods. Schools have punishments (detentions, suspensions) and rewards (stickers, privileges etc.) to try to control student behavior. Punishments work best because they don’t cost money and rewards are often small and have to do with academic achievement not good behavior (although the first often requires some of the second). Academically, there is a second standard that assumes there can be physical limitations to achievement and so we use the other method to figure out what is hindering a certain performance and coming up with strategies to make it easier. To qualify for special education, you have to show a difference in aptitude (your potential) and achievement (how you actually perform). People who just have low IQs do not qualify for any special help because theoretically they won’t be able to do better help or no help. If you are dyslexic, you have a limitation of how you perceive letters and words, but you are smart enough for the higher cognition of reading. So, schools help you get better at recognizing words and you show better overall reading performance. This makes sense.

We don’t need to draw the academic line. ADHD, for example, effects academic performance as well as general behavior. Maybe you need stronger rewards and punishments to behave in class or maybe we give you medication. As a classroom teacher in charge of controlling the behavior of twenty-five adolescents, you’re navigating both methods – you set clear rewards and punishments, but you know some kids are going to need extra motivation and you know some kids have these other physical and emotional reasons why school is difficult. You try to motivate students with rewards and try to make difficult work more manageable to your struggling students. You also communicate with parents and make recommendations for physical or emotional support.
On a side note, a lot of private schools do not have special education programs. I have limited experience with private schools, but the two I have interviewed for made it very clear that it was a sink or swim environment – students are either motivated and excel or are not and fail or are not worthy of private education. I will assume that not all private schools are so rigid, but they all do have the advantage of a trump punishment – they can expel (or just not admit). Public schools do not have that option. If you are expected to teach all students, the burden of making school accessible to all students means finding ways to balance a limitation (we could say weakness, something that prevents you from achieving your aptitude) with assistance that’s aimed at the cause of the weakness.

Ok, now imagine that you are trying to change the performance of the entire population of school-aged children. You want more kids to achieve more. The first method says you have big rewards and punishments. Because adults are in charge here, it’s going to come in the form of money – federal dollars. Schools that don’t work, we won’t fund. That’s a big incentive. Of course, it’s also a bit insulting because it assumes that schools can change their performance, but they are just not motivated to. No Child Left Behind, what in our case is in charge of changing the performance of the entire population of school aged children, does provide some guidance in terms of the other strategy. For example, “failing” schools are prohibited from having new teachers fill more than a small percentage of their teaching staff. This makes sense. Having a huge percentage of inexperienced teachers is not wise and might limit how much the new teachers can learn if there are fewer experienced models and mentors. But, a school that has a high percentage of young teachers probably does not have it that way by choice. A poorer performing school is going to attract poorer (or at least more inexperienced) teachers. This is not to knock young teachers, who are often committed, idealistic and hard working, but you want a mix of idealism and tried and true strategies. As far as I understand, NCLB provides no support to help the school attract better teachers (with money, for example). To beat my metaphor with a stick, this is like telling the dyslexic kid he needs to switch his letters less.

If you assume that principals and superintendents are where they are because they are competent and care about doing what is best for their students, then the motivation is already there (This is not what I would grant to be true for all of my 12 year old students, who do need some external motivation and is why I would treat them differently. And never pay them to be in charge). So, if it’s not motivation, are there limitations that are creating a difference between public schools’ aptitude and their achievement? Of course there are, which is why there is so much discussion regarding changing the performance of public schools. But, I would argue more of an emphasis needs to be on managing those limitations, not on motivating administrators.

Recognizing the limitations is the harder issue and they have to do with every element of a society. But, what seems to be a starting point is that “failing” schools are usually in poorer districts and that means the schools have less funding and it often impacts how much academic support students have at home (in terms of having time and a quiet place to do homework, a positive parental attitude towards school, affording educational materials, time spent watching TV, etc.). In many places, poorer areas are also less white and more black or Hispanic or other communities that are already often discriminated against and may have less resources. We know the effects of poverty and racism spread to every aspect of life. Affirmative action comes exactly from this understanding. Fixing these limitations means making a more equitable society. And, schools are a great place to start. It is possible to address inequality in a classroom and within a school district, but it takes a lot of work and requires small classrooms, lots of support staff (counselors, after-school programs etc.) which means, money. There are some excellent programs designed to decrease the achievement gap between white and minority students that work because they address the causes. Creating a huge initiative for school change that seems aimed more at motivating administrators and ignoring the root causes of inequalities in schools seems like a colossal cop out. If you tell your students that you’ll pay them $50 if they can read something aloud perfectly, you’re just emphasizing inequalities we already know about. Your dyslexic student might manage to figure out some strategies to read on his own, but why should someone pay you to teach him if it was just a matter of motivating (paying) him?

The things that motivate businesses like competition and earning money don’t work for social programs like public schools because you are not allowed to have winners and losers ie leave children behind. The upside is pouring money into improving schools might be the most effective and cheapest way to create a more equal society.