I think see your point in the first sentence, in that money alone (once you've achieved a basic livelihood) is a questionable motivator of job quality. The art

I think see your point in the first sentence, in that money alone (once you've achieved a basic livelihood) is a questionable motivator of job quality. The article, however, is not necessarily talking about "teaching well," it was fundamentally about improving test scores. I was mostly taking issue with the headline's (and article's) apparent surprise that offering money for higher X caused X to increase. Not sure why an experiment was needed to establish this. Also, your rubber room article is horrifying, but I don't really see the relevance... except that the reward mechanism has been completely divorced from performance of any kind.