Gimmicks don’t motivate students

Two think-tank experts are shining a light on “the most important input in the education process” — student effort. Apparently, reformers have thus far “ignored” this “promising catalyst for student success.”

You’re probably wondering how anybody — let alone everybody — high up in the education world could have missed the “simple” principle that “when students work harder, they learn more.” The real problem is that, unlike much of the world, “we don’t expect most kids to work very hard, and they don’t.”

That many students aren’t thrilled with schoolwork isn’t news. Students back in my school days questioned the “real-world relevance of their schoolwork,” too, and while the internet is a new distraction for the 21st-century, television, “friends, sports, and after-school jobs” were diversions for us the same way they lure today’s students.

One difference might be that the adults in my classmates’ lives, parents and teachers, were more likely to respond, “tough,” when we complained. Today, many experts advise against making learning too hard and unappealing. Advocates for the nationwide Civic Missions of Schools, for example, warn that expecting students to master too much civics content might “alienate” them from the political process.

Yes, by all means, let’s have as many ignorant participants in government as possible.

Some reformers propose motivating students by paying them cash or giving them prizes. This is like expecting a health club to pay me just because I sweat there. I benefit from exercising, and students benefit from learning. That’s why neither of us should get paid.

Our think tank experts recommend motivating students by holding them accountable for their test scores. In short, we need to reestablish the natural consequence for failure by giving students credit only when they succeed. They propose measuring success with innovative “end of course” exams, formerly known as finals, and mandatory graduation tests.

Mandatory testing would certainly motivate students who want to make sure they graduate. It would also encourage others who enjoy competition or appreciate explicit markers by which to measure their achievement, an incentive some students miss in this age of standardsbased non-grading. At the same time, compulsory tests would doubtless increase the dropout rate among students who either don’t care or haven’t learned enough to earn a diploma.

There’s no perfect answer. One-time tests are less comprehensive than multiple classroom assessments administered throughout the year. High teacher expectations can help boost achievement but won’t move every student. Enforcing rigorous graduation standards will mean that fewer students graduate.

Our experts conclude by recommending that “school leaders should embrace the responsibility of holding students accountable.” It’s appalling that they need to recommend something so obvious. We must recognize, though, that schools’ lax expectations reflect the pressures the rest of us put on schools to guarantee success, and the consequences of that false guaranty.

Apathy isn’t only a problem for students at the lower end of the spectrum. Teachers also need to motivate bright and gifted students. Many specialists even contend there’s a significant difference between “bright” and “gifted.” They’ve compiled a 23-item diagnostic checklist.

For example, a bright child “knows the answers,” while a truly gifted learner “asks the questions.” Of course, if he’s asking questions but doesn’t know the answers, that could be because he wasn’t listening. This is possible because a bright child “listens with interest” while a gifted learner is busy being “mentally and physically involved.” At the same time, while a bright child “learns with ease,” a gifted learner “already knows,” which is problematic because we just identified bright children as the ones who know.

While bright children have “good ideas” and “work hard,” a gifted child has “wild, silly ideas” and “plays around.” He nonetheless “tests well,” presumably because one mark of a gifted learner is he’s a “good guesser.”

Can you distinguish the objective difference between “interested” and “highly curious,” or “alert” and “keenly observant?” If a student “enjoys learning” more than he “enjoys school,” is it because he’s gifted or shy? I’ve taught many non-gifted students I’d describe as “intense,” and just as many nonbright students who enjoy their peers more than adult company.

You probably sense by now that I don’t find the checklist a useful diagnostic tool. More to the point, I don’t find the distinction itself between “bright” and “gifted” useful. Like most teachers, I deal with students where I find them, and I try to move them along as far as I can. I do this with each student in the context of twenty other students. That’s because I’m a classroom teacher, not a private tutor.

Experts devise checklists in part because they attempt to address public education’s problems by pretending teaching is a science. The trouble is teaching is much more a skill and an art. In the same way, learning can be fun, but it’s more often a labor.

Students need sweat, inspiration, and initiative much more than they need gimmicks.