If I'd known that I'd never have gone to the chalkboard to perform before my 30 or so classmates when so ordered by my SWWF classroom overseer: the SAGE manual teaches the teacher not to achieve student proficiency by correction of error. Let them sit there, missing out, students-who-won't-learn, making no errors, but with intact face. And I actually believed that the humiliation of getting it wrong was an incentive for getting it right. How primitive it was, then.
The ancient Romans called surly citizen pacification bread-and-circuses; in modern public education, it's called money and music.
Not all educators support this incentivization; some call it bribery. The literature is unclear on the subject of actual Students-Who-Won't-Learn behavior: is it active classroom disruption, necessitating teacher abandonment of the other 15 in the class to try to deal with one (ejection to the principal's office no longer allowed in public school) or is it just passive classroom disengagement? If so, the teacher can still devote effort to the 15 who have "assented" (a little Kohl lingo, there) to learn something and thereby avoid missing out on a free (well, taxpayer-funded) opportunity.
What is more interesting is the question about teacher competence (and accountability for student achievement) it raises. If the SWWL's are paid or entertained to demonstrate proficiency, does the teacher thereby get more accountability points and merit pay? What about the equally skilled teacher in the district which chooses not to bribe -oops, make that "incentivize"-- dismissal for incompetence? What about dismissal for SWWL's, not their adult supervisors? Or is that forbidden by the 28th Amendment: "No SWWL, whether actively disruptive or passively disengaged, shall be dismissed from the classroom"?
Closing note: I tried really, really hard to appreciate the "Forgive-us-Father-for-we-have-sinned" apologia of Mr. Kohl and other educators for the sins of dealing insensitively with SWWL's, but eventually I refused to assent to his teaching.