Coby will no doubt disagree with this interpretation. But his conclusion reminds one of that advanced by "post-partisans," those who think we should move beyond our (in Coby's words) "heated, theory-driven arguments" and find that hallowed, middle ground.
I recall National Review's Jonah Goldberg pointing out recently that post-partisan people are no such thing. In fact, they're actually very partisan folks who couch their ideas in post-partisan language and pressure others to accept a "compromise" that is, in reality, a surrender. Coby writes that we've reached a stalemate about the appropriateness of paying students for test scores and attendance, and that therefore we should simply allow districts to experiment with paying students for test scores and attendance and see if it works. Such experimentation is precisely what I'm arguing against, for lots of reasons, so I don't see myself accepting his solution.
I have no problem with the Baltimore program, though, which, if I understand it correctly, gives kids a certain amount of money to invest in the stock market and lets them keep the??dollars they earn from their investments.
This is different??from paying kids to attend class. In the stock market, making money is the return, so when we allow students to keep the dollars they earn through their investment savvy, we educate by replicating reality. When we inject cash incentives into areas where they do not belong, however, we pervert the incentives that already exist and students learn nothing for it. If they learn anything,??it??is certainly the wrong lesson.