Will Squeamish Reformers Ever Accept Incentives?

While the mostly-white policy and media worlds generally react squeamishly to "learn to earn" initiatives sprouting up around the country -- just as many did to the incentives in NCLB -- not everyone seems so opposed.  Roland Fryer was just honored for his work on "re-branding" student achievement for black and Hispanic children in New York City (here).  Fryer was also featured prominently on CNN's much-praised "Black In America" series earlier this week (CNN Trains Its Lens On RaceNYT), in which he says:

“I’m not trying to focus on incentives without thinking about teacher quality and other things. But, as one step in that direction, let’s see how much of the test-score gap we can get back if kids are fundamentally motivated.”

At some point, it seems to me, Fryer's critics have to address the reality that incentives -- explicit or not, governmental, familial or informal -- are already out there, and always have been.  Let's not pretend that the world's not full of incentives.  Let's not be naive or ideological that everyone has to learn for learning's sake.  Or, as one blogger at the Chronicle writes:

"I have to admit that I find these critiques pretty compelling, even as I remember my stepfather’s monetary deal with me: a dollar bill for every 100 percent test score that I brought home from elementary school. Was that the reason why I made it out of the projects in Brooklyn and into the Ivy League? I don’t think so, but Fryer wants to prove me wrong."  (Brainstorm)

To me, it's just a matter of whether school reformers want to win enough to get their hands dirty.  And, of course, designing the incentives and objectives right. [Thanks to SB for the hookup.]