Monetized Education: "Pays for A's"

Sometimes, the snappy salutes TV and the tribunes of consumerism give each other become so noxious that not even a ladle-ful of Estee Lauder could fragrance the relation enough to make it fit for company. Our local NBC affiliate and a suburban mall have teamed up to offer a program called “Pays for A’s.” Students bring their report cards to the mall’s guest services and for every A will receive their choice of a free scoop of ice cream, a pretzel, or a sour rock candy stick—and, they are entered into a drawing for the grand prize: 20 tickets to an IMAX film plus free pop and popcorn for each guest. Now, I understand the principles of stimulus-reward behaviorism; after all, it’s how B. F. Skinner got pigeons to play ping pong. But, putting aside the triviality of the rewards and the fact that “Pays for A’s” is designed to draw children into the mall, that shining citadel of getting and spending, this program is, for me, as healthy as a bucket of Karmelkorn—which, inexplicably, was left off the prize list.

Of course, the steady encroachment of commercial values into noncommercial areas has, by now, a well-established pedigree. The problem is that commercial values do not admit a sense of some purpose beyond the materially transactional. An activity that cannot be monetized lacks substance or significance. There is no sense that activities have value in themselves. There is no good but goods. “Pays for A’s” subordinates learning to materialist ends and assumes that such ends are the essence of human nature. So much for John Dewey’s notion of ends being the means for further ends unfolding in ordered richness. Instead, students are taught to be impatient with activities whose values are deferred in a process that, like education, occurs over time. “Pays for A’s” denies collateral learning, “ah ha!” moments, self-insight, and the self-esteem that comes from accomplishment. Just commit crystallized lumps of data to memory, rehearse them at test time, earn an A, and get a prize. Kind of like Cracker Jacks.

The program also assumes that with pecuniary motivation all students can get A’s, which simply ignores the reality of individual difference. Students who work hard to raise their grades from, say, C’s to B’s go unrewarded. Those already earning A’s are simply encouraged to not slack off. To see the sense of this would require several Long Island Ice Teas. It is wrongheaded and elitist.

Perhaps my view of education, of what it means to become educated, floats on rose-scented air. Still, I can’t help but feel that in gaining a price it has lost its value.