The practice of rewarding teachers based on student achievement dates back to early 18th century England, where the system was ultimately discarded mainly due to the large degree of record falsification and rote education. In the late 1960’s, President Nixon introduced a similar system which produced the same results. In fact, there have not been any long-term financial incentives for education that have worked. Despite this, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) has decided that it’s time for another try. Over the summer, the DOE instituted a system in which students were paid based on test scores and attendance. More recently, the DOE introduced a reward system for passing Advanced Placement tests, and even more incentives are in the works.

One new plan would pay certain high-needs schools $3,000 per teacher if their overall test scores are high enough. A small committee at the school, including the principal and two teachers, would decide how to divide the money. The idea behind this new plan is that talented teachers will be encouraged to transfer to these high-needs school, which are not currently sought-after destinations for teachers. However, this plan also brings the New York City education system one step closer to functioning like a corporation, where in many cases merit-based bonuses are standard practice. United Federation of Teachers (UFT) president Randi Weingarten, however, said that this plan “shuts the door on the individual merit pay plans that I abhor,” and that it is different from individual bonuses because it includes a system of checks and balances, such as the ability by union chapters at eligible schools to vote on whether they wish to join the program.

The DOE decided to use the same reasoning on high-needs. Last month, private philanthropists unveiled a new plan to pay low-income students at 31 New York City schools for scoring a 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam. $1,000 will be given for scoring a 5 (the highest score), $750 for a 4, and $500 for a 3. This program is designed to increase the number of low-income and minority students who take and pass AP exams. Participating schools are given $2,000 and the ability to apply for a grant of up to $10,000. Many educators, as well as NYC Chancellor Joel Klein, have nothing but praise for the new setup. However, critics believe that students should learn for knowledge’s sake, not for a cash payout.

One of the most recent incentive proposals in the NYC school system is not cash-based; instead the DOE wants to “engage” students. To that end, Dr. Roland G. Fryer, DOE’s chief equality officer, is pushing a plan to give some students free cell phones, and then reward good performance with free airtime. The mayor, however, stated that he has no intention of lifting or relaxing the current ban against cell phones in NYC schools. Dr. Fryer is also behind the plan that is currently in place, where some students can earn money for test scores and attendance.

The basic idea behind all the new DOE incentives is that people work harder when they are rewarded. Unfortunately for the DOE, this isn’t always true. Despite our cynical nature, people do often work simply for the satisfaction of doing good work. A prime example can be found in a survey of Swiss citizens conducted about ten years ago. Citizens were asked if they would accept a nuclear waste dump in their communities. About half of the respondents said that they would accept one. However, when people were asked if they would accept a dump if they were paid an annual sum, only about a quarter of the respondents said yes. When they were offered money, people stopped considering the greater good and began thinking about the incentive. Most people felt that the money (about six weeks of an average worker’s pay) was not enough.

As any public school student can tell you, even the best teachers in the best schools now teach for standardized tests. Test scores affect how teachers are viewed, how schools are viewed, and even how schools are funded. These new incentives will only make this worse. Educators have decided that students are not motivated to work hard in school. Unfortunately, this is true. However, the answer is not to pay students and teachers for good performance. This merely creates an imbalanced learning environment, where some students and teachers are paid more than others. Additionally, financial incentives teach young kids that you learn in order to get money, or a fancy gadget, not that learning is important for its own sake. This is especially true in the case of the young; elementary school and junior high school students are being paid, not just high schoolers. If and when the money is taken away from students, their reason for learning also disappears. The DOE needs to realize that there are intrinsic problems in our school system that doling out some extra cash just won’t fix.