Aug
25
2010
Bribes that Work – 13 Doubts
Author: staciIn the TIME magazine article “Is Cash the Answer?” four different cities were given four different ways to bribe their students. The intention was to see if cash could be an incentive to get students to raise their standardized test scores.
The Dallas study focused on the reading scores of second graders. The students were paid $2 a book and the results were described as very positive, meaning reading comprehension skills dramatically improved.
Well, I love the concept but I have several issues with both the process, and the reading of the results. Maybe it’s because I have a background in education.
1. What’s the big deal with Standardized Tests.
The nice thing about them is that they are, well, standardized. But it’s the only thing in education that is, so why do we worry about it so much? Does it test a kids abilities to thin on their feet? Does it test how kids analyze and understand new information? No, it tests how well students do on standardized tests.
2. Second Graders will do anything.
This study had too many variables. The youngest age group had the biggest positive result. If there had a been a control group that received stickers, or bubble gum instead of two dollars, you might have seen similar results.
3. They were tested on a computer.
The results don’t really seem to apply to standardized testing at all. The point was to improve test scores, which are usually done with a pencil and given by a teacher verbally. Yet the comprehension tests here were done on a computer.
4. The tests were given immediately after reading the book.
Most standardized testing happens in the fall, within weeks of the start of school. And right after summer vacation. over information that was learned months ago. How is this fair?
5. The tests were only about that book.
Standardized tests usually cover a variety of topics, not just reading.
6. The tests covered material the students actually had access too.
Many standardized tests ask questions they only assume the kids have been exposed to.
7. The tests only took minutes to complete.
Most standardized tests take days to complete. Any students with test anxiety will not perform well on these test for this reason alone.
8. They haven’t compared these tests with their standardized test scores.
Which means we don’t know if reading those books will carry over into improved reading skills.
9. The average amount earned was only $13.81.
I know this is only an average, but that equates to only 7 books read. That is less than one book a month. I am skeptical that reading less than one book a month could have such dramatic results.
10. The $2 was given immediately after completing the tests.
It is presumed that having the money right away is one reason why it was a positive result.
11. What if they had received positive feedback without money right away.
How do we actually know that it was the money that brought the turn around? Usual standardized tests take months to get the results.
12. Did the computers give feedback about right or wrong answers while students were taking test?
The feedback from Standardized tests are usually vague. Many adults cannot read the scores, let alone students. And if you don’t understand your score, you will not know how to make improvements.
13.Could the practice of taking the tests have helped improve test results?
Second Grade students have had little practice with taking tests. Is it possible that just taking the comprehension test was the practice that the students needed to improve their results?
These are all questions that leave me doubting the validity of the test. I think bribing can work, but I am not sure that this test laid out a strong case for its use in the classroom.
This test was the cheapest of the four employed, and the results were positive, so schools may decide to continue this practice even though I don’t feel that he, the economist, proved it was the bribe that inspired the changes.
So if you are considering bribing your kids for improved test scores, you may want to consider the variables first: how much, how often, and for what.
What do you think?
This is linked in:






