“We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control / No dark sarcasm in the classroom / Teachers, leave them kids alone" - Pink Floyd
It’s been over forty years since Pink Floyd wrote their anti-authoritarian anthem about school, but their message is still as relevant in 2022 as it was back in 1979. Indeed, students of all ages across the United States are increasingly disengaged and disillusioned with the education system. All this comes as no surprise: respected scholars in the field of education have recognized for decades that the underlying philosophy of schooling, which revolves around extrinsic motivation to produce high achievement, is antithetical to engagement and curiosity (Brookhart, Susan M. et al). It is puzzling then that schools seem to be designed to inhibit the most important activity they are supposed to promote: learning. Yet on the other hand, these institutions have long been extremely successful at reinforcing societal norms and structural oppression (Fisher, Benjamin W., et al.). Through this juxtaposition, it becomes clear that the purpose of the education system in the United States is not to encourage students to learn, but to create an effective system of social control.
The American education system varies widely depending on the individual institution; factors like public or private funding, location, and teaching philosophy all play a role in the experience of students (Principles and General Objectives of Education). However, the one common thread that is almost unavoidable in the American education system is grading. According to the US Department of Education this evaluation is a necessary component of the system claiming, “Assessment standards and tools are the result of the pressures of the competitive academic marketplace, the expectations and requirements of employers and state agencies, and the standards required by accrediting agencies and professional and research associations (Structure of U.S. Education: Evaluation and Assessment).” These tools of assessment are deeply embedded into the educational process, serving as negative reinforcement for poor performance and positive reinforcement for high achievement. This means that schools all over the country, regardless of their many differences, are focused on quantifying their students’ success and making sure to keep up with established benchmarks rather than cultivating an environment for discovery and gathering knowledge.
Research into the effects of extrinsic motivation on students’ performance demonstrates that both rewards and punishments are particularly ineffective methods for engaging students in the learning process. Alfie Kohn, long-time scholar and researcher in the education field, outlines the harmful effect of grades on learning outcomes throughout his body of work. In in his article The Case Against Grades he explains, “Grades tend to do three things: diminish students’ interest in whatever they’re learning, create a preference for the easiest possible task, and reduce the quality of the students’ thinking (144).” This demonstrates that outside motivators interfere with students’ ability to thoughtfully engage in the material they are studying; they are instead being conditioned to care about the implied result of the learning rather than the learning itself. This reinforces the notion that the education system is embedded in a paradigm that actively discourages engaged discourse.
Kohn is not alone in his concern for the psychological impact of offering external rewards to encourage desired outcomes. Indeed, there is a substantial body of work which explores the negative effect of introducing extrinsic motivators (Brookhart, Susan M. et al). An excellent example of this is researchers Kathryn Kernodle Loveland and J. Gregory Olley’s article The Effect of External Rewards on Interest and Quality of Task Performance in Children of High and Low Intrinsic Motivation where they outline the decline in quality of children’s play when offered rewards. In the study, young children who were offered a reward for producing drawings were less engaged and exhibited less enthusiasm in the process (Loveland and Olley). This shows that the phenomenon of demotivation produced by rewards is engrained in human psychology, meaning that even offering a candy bar to a child for answering a math problem can hinder the child’s ability and interest in engaging with the task.
Substantial rewards like candy bars are not the only form of extrinsic motivation detrimental to learning; rewards in forms ranging from concrete to conceptual contribute to the problem. Janet T. Spence’s article Do Material Rewards Enhance the Performance of Lower-Class Children? hits home the negative impact of this spectrum of external motivations on educational outcomes. The study included students from both lower and higher socio-economic status and compares the impact of material and symbolic rewards on children’s ability and interest in completing tasks. The result of the study showed little variation in result, with students regardless of their background or the type of reward offered showing less motivation to engage when offered rewards. This strongly suggests that introducing external motivators into the learning process implies that the task itself is not inherently valuable, thus devaluing the act of engaging in it. (Spence)
These studies have demonstrated extrinsic motivation to be counterproductive to the act of learning, but many of them also suggest a positive impact from strong intrinsic motivation. A study by researcher Edward L. Deci called The Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation tested the effect of four reinforcement strategies: contingent rewards, punishments, no reinforcement and positive reinforcement. The study showed that both the contingent rewards and punishments were demotivating, causing participants to disengage from the task. Those who were left to their own devices and those who received positive verbal affirmation performed the best, exhibiting the highest amounts of intrinsic motivation. This points to a deep flaw in the way the education system is set up: motivating children through threats and contingent rewards discourages them from learning while positive reinforcements of children's natural curiosity would be far more effective. (Deci)
These findings have been synthesized by Deci and his collaborator Richard Ryan into a scientific theory called Self-determination theory. On their website Center for Self Determination, Ryan and Deci describe the theory as the notion that “Conditions supporting the individual’s experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are argued to foster the most volitional and high-quality forms of motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity.” This suggests that active engagement encourages more of itself; it makes the task of learning engaging and therefore more successful. This makes a compelling argument for the idea that agency and self-direction are keys to the exact kind of performance the educational system claims to want and yet fails to produce.
This orientation to learning is also substantiated by studies which test neurological implications of intrinsic motivation on the brain. Using Self-determination theory as a basis, Ryan and fellow researcher Stefano I. Di Domenico explore the relationship between neurochemicals and engaging in one’s environment. In their article The Emerging Neuroscience of Intrinsic Motivation: A New Frontier in Self-Determination Research they explain, “Across different mammalian species, there appear to be linkages between dopamine and the positive experiences associated with exploration, new learning and interest in one’s environment.” This means that the ability to be intrinsically motivated and self-determine one’s activities is biologically engrained and has substantial neurological benefits. This again points to positive outcomes of giving students the power to determine their own interests and nurture their passions, not adhere to an ambiguously defined set of external standards.
This body of work, which represents a wide variety of demographics and scholarly disciplines, paints a decidedly clear picture about the ramifications of centering extrinsic motivation over intrinsic. However, educators argue that this research has impractical implications: the education system cannot simply abandon its assessment methods; grades must exist to communicate students’ ability to master the material. However, Kohn counters this, asserting that qualitative feedback could easily replace formal grading practices (135). He advocates for using assessment periods as a time for students to self-reflect, recommending that grades be negotiated between student and teacher, with the students providing input on how well they performed. This would go a long way toward bringing about a system in which students can exercise self-determination and proactively engage in topics. The scientific evidence is overwhelming to suggest that this model would produce more enthusiastic, self-directed, critical thinking students, yet the education system remains wholly unmoved.
The reason the education system is ignoring decades of compelling research regarding extrinsic motivation is not merely oversight, but a reflection that institutions have no interest in relinquishing control and embracing a methodology that would empower students. It is time to face the fact the education system is not failing; it is simply succeeding at something else. Indeed, school is extremely effective at producing and reproducing societal structures. Kohn sums up this sentiment in his book Punished by Rewards saying, “Reinforcements do not generally alter the attitudes and emotional commitments that underlie our behaviors. What they do is induce compliance, and they do it well (34).” This means that while external input does very little to alter our deepest motivations, it does an excellent job at reinforcing social norms. Through these negative and positive inputs, schools perpetuate societal standards and promote social order.
The field of sociology has done considerable exploration of the production of social norms within societies, which are enforced through “sanctions” defined as positive and negative reinforcement which shape individual behaviors (Crossman). In this way, the systems of feedback in the education system, which are detrimental to learning, are extremely effective at instructing children on societal expectations. Sanctions found in the formal education system such as grades, gold stars, awards, time outs, trips to the principal’s office, and suspensions all function together to communicate the boundaries of established social norms. This communication is a powerful tool for bringing about social cohesion and conformity, using school as a primary setting for that socialization to take place.
This function of education is especially hard to address because of its omnipresence; its unspoken rules are accepted as a natural aspect of life. Renowned scholar bell hooks wrote about this function of education and her experiences being embedded in the system as an outsider. In her book Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom she writes:
Although no one ever directly stated the rules that would govern our conduct, it was taught by example and reinforced by a system of rewards. As silence and obedience to authority were most rewarded, students learned that this was the appropriate demeanor in the classroom. Loudness, anger, emotional outbursts, and even something as seemingly innocent as unrestrained laughter were deemed unacceptable, vulgar disruptions of classroom social order.
This passage from hooks points to the strength of these societal norms and their ability to be intuitively understood and followed without question. This provides further support for the idea that school functions to create a conforming body of students, all under the guise of upholding educational standards.
Considering this push toward social order, it is strange that there are classrooms across the country in underprivileged communities that are decidedly out of control. If the system is indeed successful at maintaining societal structures, what accounts for this phenomenon? Sociologist Émile Durkheim explains this through his understanding of social deviance (Carter). An article published by The University of Minnesota called Explaining Deviance – Sociology outlines Durkheim’s theory of functional deviance writing, “deviance clarifies social norms and increases conformity. This happens because the discovery and punishment of deviance reminds people of the norms and reinforces the consequences of violating them... and it strengthens social bonds among the people reacting to the deviance.” Durkheim's concept illuminates how the greater social order depends on maintaining an acceptable level of deviance. This can be applied to the role that these out of control classrooms play in social control: they provide an example of what not to, a marginalized group that the dominant society can alienate for the benefit of a higher social order.
This practice of sacrificing certain demographics to the category of deviant is demonstrated in the “school-to-prison pipeline” which sees kids going straight from these unruly classrooms to doing prison time. Mary Ellen Flannery in her article The School to Prison Pipeline: Time to Shut it Down explains that this phenomenon is “Fueled by zero tolerance policies and the presence of police officers in schools... these excessive practices have resulted in the suspensions, expulsions, and arrests of tens of millions of public-school students, especially students of color and those with disabilities or who identify as LGBT.” This heavily implies that the school system is not set up to help these underprivileged students succeed in mainstream society. Instead, the school-to-prison pipeline demonstrates robust infrastructures to funnel marginalized groups from the school system to the prison system, sacrificing their well-being for the greater social cohesion that results.
As the prevalence of these practices implies, the education system did not arrive at this social function by accident. Indeed, schools providing indoctrination to the social order goes back to the beginning of the formal education system in the United States. Roger Deacon, in his article Michael Foucault on Education: A Preliminary Theoretical Overview, explores education through the ideas of influential scholar Michael Foucault. He examines the origin of modern schooling saying:
The school was not the only institution that offered education; it was in direct peda- gogical competition with institutions peddling in apprenticeships, salvation, rehabilitation, cure, moral instruction, and the arts of war; and its functions were for a time largely restrictive and negative, containing social problems rather than promoting social development. Only once schools had begun to demonstrate their peculiar mastery of disciplinary techniques for managing people... did systematic instruction and its instrument, the school, appear as more than merely one amongst many competing strategies.
This demonstrates that the evolution of school and its subsequent ubiquity in American life is primarily attributed to its ability to control its citizens. It suggests that the primary focus for education from the beginning has been to indoctrinate young children into the rules of society, not create a place conducive to free thinking and self-expression.
Throughout the development of the education system, there were forces advocating for social control. However, not everyone in the field of education supported those values; John Dewey is a prime example of this, who reviled the notion that school should produce obedient children who respect authority. In his book Democracy and Education published in 1917, he wrote, “The aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education — or that the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth.” Clearly Dewey implicitly understood the need for intrinsic motivation in the process of learning, recognizing education to be its own reward. Dewey ultimately left his position at the University of Chicago because he disagreed with the way the institution implemented his ideas, twisting them into practices that were more palatable to the status quo. This is indicative of how the momentum of societal control tends to overpower voices who aim to create fundamental change. (John Dewey: Portrait of a Progressive Thinker)
One of the agents of this agenda for social control, influential in the development of education during the Progressive Era, is Alexander James Inglis. He proposed a set of organizing principles to serve as the backbone for the education system in his book Principles of Secondary Education stating:
The American democracy depends for its existence and success on the social consciousness and social cooperation of its citizens. Unless the school can make a significant contribution to the development of social consciousness and social cooperation it must fail in one of its most important purposes. In the endeavor to make that contribution great responsibility must rest on the secondary school wherein is trained that somewhat select group of individuals who must ultimately exert the greatest influence on our social and civic life.
This points to remarkable intentionality around not only fostering compliance from the population but creating social stratification to keep the power and influence in the hands of a select few. Inglis’ point of view impacted the establishment of modern education, and his philosophy uncovers the explicit agenda to create and maintain societal control. (Tilney)
Even Horace Mann, another shaper of the modern education system, contributed to education's role in creating social order. Mann is often seen as the champion of democratic education because of his belief in egalitarian access to education, however, Michael J. Steudeman in his article Horace Mann: The Necessity of Education in a Republican Government explains Mann’s underlying fear that drove his ideology saying:
The "unmanacled" mind frightened Mann..."Like an archangel," he cautioned, the freed mind would "be saved or lost by its obedience or its transgressions" (43). This claim would be central to Mann's contention that education was necessary to democratic society: it would direct individual minds along a path of obedience.
This shows that Mann was deeply concerned about the lack of order brought about by a democratic society, so he advocated for schools to take on the role of shaping students as morally righteous participants in society. This deeply influential point of view shows a disconnect in the education system which believes it advocate for democratic principles while attempting to control how students behave and what they believe.
The legacy of control is a throughline in the development of the modern education system, implying that the educational system has a disturbing lack of interest in empowering children. John Taylor Gatto author and former New York school echoes these sentiments and condemns the current dismal state of education in his blogpost Against School; he asserts, “we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants.” This call to action, which requires members of society to wake up and recognize what is happening, is key to its unraveling. Gatto is correct; it is time to stop paying attention to what the education system says it wants to do and listen to what it is doing.
The United States Department of Education website claims that it promotes high scholastic achievement, saying it supports the successful learning of every individual and teaches the importance of democratic ideals (Principles and General Objectives of Education). However, through the analysis of the detrimental effect of extrinsic motivators, education’s role in reproducing societal norms, and the education system’s historical emphasis on social control, it becomes abundantly clear that this is not the case. Even if educators have the best of intentions and are primarily driven by a desire for positive outcomes for their students, they actively contribute to a system that produces bored, disengaged, and disenfranchised students. Teachers, administrators and parents must cast off this legacy of control and work together to counteract the negative effects of the established education system, encouraging dissent, self-determination and above all allow students to challenge established standards of decorum and performance. The process may be uncomfortable and a little scary, but it is the only way to ignite the passions of millions of disaffected young people who are ultimately responsible for what matters most: the future.
p.s. This paper is dedicated to all you kids posting on the internet about how much you hate school. Thanks for sharing, reposed below are some of my favorites:
Works Cited
Brookhart, Susan M., et al. “A Century of Grading Research: Meaning and Value in the Most Common Educational Measure.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 4, 2016, pp. 803–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44668237. Accessed 14 Oct. 2022.
“Explaining Deviance – Sociology.” Pressbooks, 8 Apr. 2016, open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/7-2-explaining-deviance.
Carter, Bradley W. Differential and Social Cohesion: Returning Toe Durkheim for a Unitary Theory of Deviance. Texas Tech University.
Crossman, Ashley. “The Role Sanctions Play in Encouraging Compliance With Social Norms.” ThoughtCo, 2 Aug. 2019, www.thoughtco.com/sanction-definition-3026570.
Deacon, Roger. “Michel Foucault on Education: A Preliminary Theoretical Overview.” South African Journal of Education, 2006.
Deci, Edward L. “The Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 8, pp. 217–29. selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/1972_Deci_OBHP.pdf.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. “Theory.” selfdeterminationtheory.org, selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory. Accessed 15 Oct. 2022.
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. LATER PRINTING., Free Press, 1997.
Di Domenico, Stefano I., and Richard M. Ryan. “The Emerging Neuroscience of Intrinsic Motivation: A New Frontier in Self-Determination Research.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 11, Frontiers Media SA, Mar. 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00145.
Fisher, Benjamin W., et al. “Social Control in Schools: The Relationships Between School Security Measures and Informal Social Control Mechanisms.” Journal of School Violence, vol. 18, no. 3, Aug. 2018, pp. 347–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1503964.
Flannery, Mary Ellen. The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Time to Shut It Down | NEA. www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/school-prison-pipeline-time-shut-it-down. Accessed 15 Oct. 2022.
Gatto, John Taylor. “Against School.” McGill School of Computer Science, www.cs.mcgill.ca/%7Eabatko/interests/teaching/essays/Against_Schools. Accessed 15 Oct. 2022.
hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge, 1994.
Inglis, Alexander James. Principles of Secondary Education (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin C Company, 1918), 719.
“John Dewey: Portrait of a Progressive Thinker.” The National Endowment for the Humanities, www.neh.gov/article/john-dewey-portrait-progressive-thinker. Accessed 15 Oct. 2022.
Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, a’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. 2nd ed., Mariner Books, 1999.
---. “‘The Case Against Grades.’” Counterpoints, vol. 451, 2013, pp. 143–53. www.jstor.org/stable/42982088. Accessed 16 Oct. 2022.
Loveland, Kathryn Kernodle, and J. Gregory Olley. “The Effect of External Reward on Interest and Quality of Task Performance in Children of High and Low Intrinsic Motivation.” Child Development, vol. 50, no. 4, JSTOR, Dec. 1979, p. 1207. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129350.
Pink Floyd. “Another Brick in the Wall.” Columbia/CBS Records, 1979.
“Principles and General Objectives of Education.” World Data on Education, 2006, www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/United_States_of_America.pdf.
Spence, Janet T. “Do Material Rewards Enhance the Performance of Lower-Class Children?” Child Development, vol. 42, no. 5, JSTOR, Nov. 1971, p. 1461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127910.
Steudeman, Michael J. “Horace Mann: The Necessity of Education in a Republican Government” Voices of Democracy. University of Maryland. 2013
Structure of U.S. Education: Evaluation and Assessment. www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-evaluation.html. Accessed 15 Oct. 2022.
Taylor, Bob Pepperman. Horace Mann’s Troubling Legacy: The Education of Democratic Citizens (American Political Thought (University Press of Kansas)). 1st Edition, 1st Printing, UP of Kansas, 2010.
Tilney Kramer, Heidi. Visionary of Control: The Efficiency, Expertise, and Exclusion of Alexander James Inglis. University of Southern Florida.
Verity, Beck. “Online Learning and Self-Determination Theory.” B Online Learning, 9 May 2022, bonlinelearning.com/online-learning-and-self-determination-theory.
Comments