I listened to this diavlog discussing the pilot program in New York City that would pay kids to do well in school. You get good grades? You get $250. The discussants kept referring to it as being a very Skinner-ian thing to do. I'm happy to note that, in my experience, outside of behavioral psychologists, Skinner-ian is generally derogatory in tone. But, it made me wonder.
What if, instead of saying 'pay if you go', we introduce uncertainty into the calculus. There are these $X. They are going to go to students randomly drawn from a pool that all meet these requirements. As it is, the kids from wealthier families will get the subsidy. This might create an additional incentive for the poorer kids to try to succeed. This I think would be a more Skinner-ian approach. IIRC Skinner found that random confirmation of certain activities had the strongest long-term implications for behavior.
There is of course an obvious problem here. This scheme inherently promotes separate class identity. Us v. Them. It shouldn't. But it does. In any case, the scheme needs to be about community. The plan as it is tries allow for the agency of children to guide them to good. This doesn't seem to be the wisest option. The best way to promote good decision-making for youths is to do it in the context of a larger community they care about (the reformative boys towns of the early 20th century, the Boy Scouts, farms?, others?).
Those are my thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment