WASL week is over. Flocks of ’10 kids celebrate the end of their struggle against the monotony of standardized testing. The last four days have compelled a collective sigh from all other grades over extra sleep, and this weekend comes as a welcome break to test-taking underclassmen. In the aftermath of bubble sheets and free-response minefields there is little gained by Garfield’s sophomores save a graduation promise. I bring this up because in other parts of the country, testing comes with more than just permission to leave high school.

Following advice of Harvard economist Roland Fryer, New York is paying its students for their performance on tests. The awards are based on scores, and students may receive anywhere between one and fifty dollars. The system is being tested in more than 200 area schools – and with positive results. Bravo, New York.

There’s a lot of potential in providing incentives for academic success. The greatest promise of cash comes in helping pupils to see testing as more than just a worthless waste of time. As of now, districts that offer no reward face this view in abundance. I’ll use the WASL to illustrate.

No one likes the test. For overachievers it means a boring week, for strugglers a threat to self-confidence and a roadblock to graduation. It comes like a swarm of paperback locusts and strips bare a week of education. The test doesn’t teach us anything, and no benefits are conferred upon those who pass. Starting with the class of ’08, student motivation was attempted through negative incentive. If we failed, no high school diploma.

Taken as a whole, the WASL gulps down our time, threatens us, and offers no incentive. I’m not saying that the test is unnecessary; that’s a separate issue and beyond me. I’m saying that it is presented very poorly.

If Washington tried the carrot– on-a-stick approach, instead of offering threats and mandates, they would likely see positive results. A small sum of cash, like that seen in NYC schools, could go a long way. Testers who checked out for WASL week would have at least a nominal reason to care, and more than just fear would compel studying before exams. Whether or not this would bring better scores is yet to be determined, but so far all information points to the affirmative. From a student’s perspective, payment for our wasted time seems only appropriate.

Biased, selfish naysayers and opponents of paid testing cite worries over student intentions. They feel that monetary rewards would discourage learning for the sake of learning. This is absurd.

The system in place to encourage studying already relies very little on the principle of self-motivation. Grades compel work by acting as the distant menace of the semester’s end, and attendance is enforced stringently by the administration with threats of Saturday school and detention. If the system assumes that we have to be coerced into showing up and trying, who is to say that personal motivation is an irreplaceable part of modern schooling?

In fact, learning really isn’t about learning for a large portion of K-12 students. For this population, a cash reward wouldn’t destroy the conviction that never really existed, but it would give a good reason to study.

For the number of kids who truly want to work hard, money would simply be an occasional perk. No one is going to cease pursuing their passion because their district wants to pay them for it.

The bottom line is that rewarding students for the WASL and other tests may be a brilliant idea. It would give unmotivated students a reason to work, help erase social stigmas surrounding academic success, and make the tests themselves less hateful. If carefully monitored, incentives wouldn’t give students the wrong ideas about education, and if money came from the right places there would be no grave injustice.

Washington should try this new and promising concept. Our education is too important.