Explain Roland G. Fryer's plan for improving the performance of students in New York schools.

NEW YORK CITY has decided to offer cash rewards to some students based on their attendance records and exam performance. Diligent, high-achieving 12-year-olds 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 to the city’s Department of Education.

What is the first assumption of Fryer's plan?

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.

What is the second assumption of his plan?

The logic of the plan reveals a second assumption that economists make: the more motives the better. Give people two reasons to do something, 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.

What motivates people to learn?

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 enough. If they were, children would be doing better in school.

Why does the author claim that Fryer’s assumptions are false?

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.

Explain how the first experiment with nursery school children was conducted.

In one experiment, nursery school children were given the opportunity to draw with special crayons. After playing, some of the children were given “good player” awards and others were not. Some time later, the crayons were given out again in the classroom. The researchers took note of which children used the crayons, and they collected the pictures that had been drawn. The children given awards were less likely to draw at all, and drew worse pictures, than those who were not given the awards.

Some children were given an award after drawing pictures while another group was not given any reward. Later the children were asked to draw again and researchers observed what happened. In one experiment, nursery school children were given the opportunity to draw with special crayons. After playing, some of the children were given “good player” awards and others were not. Some time later, the crayons were given out again in the classroom. The researchers took note of which children used the crayons, and they collected the pictures that had been drawn. The children given awards were less likely to draw at all, and drew worse pictures, than those who were not given the awards.

Why were the results of this experiment a good illustration of the point the author is making?

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.

In the second experiment, conducted in Switzerland, there were two competing incentives: what were they?

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.

What was surprising about the outcome of the second experiment?

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.

In conclusion, the author is opposed to Fryer’s plan for New York's schools; explain why.

Obviously, the intrinsic rewards of learning aren’t working in New York’s schools, at least not for a lot of children. 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.