I don't have references but studies we read in my child interventions class demonstrated that extrinsic motivators don't always extinguish internal motivation. The cases where this did happen is when people were rewarded for mindless busywork (pushing buttons), and those studies didn't match up to what people do in the real world at all. Other studies have found that if external rewards are used for interesting and challenging work (that is not impossible to complete) then internal motivation is actually increased. Being paid to read books, for example, could qualify as an interesting task. Perhaps the child would also find that as their reading skills improve they enjoy reading and their internal motivation to do it would be increased.

A bribe is usually defined as receiving money (or other rewards) for doing something illegal or immoral. Learning and doing well in school is neither of these. If what this study is doing is a bribe, then every adult is "bribed" every day to go to work. As adults we also usually don't do things unless we are rewarded or to avoid punishment. Rewards can come in many forms including money, feeling good, being satisfied, ect. Some children are motivated by achieving and it makes them feel good to do well. That is their reward and motivation. Others may try to please their parents, which makes them happy or avoids punishment. However, some kids don't care if they achieve and don't have any other motivation. For them money could be an effective alternative. Schools don't have many means of effective punishment, so it is all about what can be found that the children are willing to work for. In some cases money may be the only thing.

Here in Utah one of the state congressmen proposed having only three years of high school to save money because he felt the fourth year was wasted. This brought up the problem that most colleges have a standard set of classes that they expect high school graduates to have. Adding a year may not cause the same problems. However, before anything is done that changes what colleges expect they are getting, the people implementing changes need to make sure that they aren't screwing over their best students for college admissions.

It must be different in different parts of the country. Areas where I have lived and worked, almost all of the additional school staff (counselors, school psychologists, and speech/language pathologists) get paid on the teachers salary schedule, which definitely isn't $70-90k+. According to NEA average teacher salary in the best paying states is around $60k.

That is true false positives are a problem, and it could add to the worry of some of the hypochondriacs out there. However, there are a significant number of people who don't go to regular doctors visits for a variety of reasons. So it is possible having something in the home that could get people out for a full examination if a risk factor is found might be good and outweigh the false positive risk.

Nice way to turn a decent post into a troll. If only I had mod points. Signatures that condone murder are nice and classy.

Jonagolds can be quite juice and tasty as well.

I am in a school psychology graduate program and the issue of cultural biases on tests is discussed often. In the field of psychometrics, bias means that the test predicts performance on some criterion differently for one group than for another. If this happens then a test is statistically biased. All of the modern common cognitive tests currently in use are not statistically biased [Brown, R.T., Reynolds, C.R. and Whitaker, J.S. (1999). Bias in mental testing since Bias in mental testing. School psychology quarterly, 14(3), 208-238.]

While tests are not biased many of them are unfair in that they contain culturally loaded questions. Even with the unfairness they do not show statistical bias. It is a distinction that seems to be only semantics for those outside psychology, but they are really two different things. It is good that bias has been removed, but the current question is how to remove culturally loaded questions while still measuring the desired construct.

Actually, IDEA and a right to a free and appropriate public education only apply to students who qualify for special education. Regular kids who don't have any disability that qualified them for special ed have no protection. I just had a special ed law class this summer, where this point was specifically brought up.

Different states have various laws about what schools can ask parents to provide for their child at school. Some let schools ask for each child to bring basic school supplies, while others aren't allowed to ask for anything. Therefore, for regular education kids the "freeness" of the education may vary, but there is no requirement for it to be appropriate.

As for the parent's experience with school districts, it all depends on where you live. There are some general federal laws that are attached to money and apply to all states, but each state has their own interpretation and different laws. Each district has their own interpretation and policies, and each school principal may enforce the policies differently. In short, there is a lot of variation even within a single city. This is one of the problems with America's school system. We don't give local control of medical care or the practice of law to the general public. They are regulated at least at a state level with people who are supposed to be knowledgeable about the profession.