Kids Score 40 Percent Higher When They Get Paid For Grades 716
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the show-them-the-money dept.
from the show-them-the-money dept.
A large number of schools participating in a pay-for-grades program have seen test scores in reading and math go up by almost 40 percentage points. The Sparks program will pay seventh-graders up to $500 and fourth-graders as much as $250 for good performance on 10 assessment tests. About two-thirds of the 59 schools in the program improved their scores by margins above the citywide average. "It's an ego booster in terms of self-worth. When they get the checks, there's that competitiveness -- 'Oh, I'm going to get more money than you next time' -- so it's something that excites them," said Rose Marie Mills, principal at MS 343 in Mott Haven. Critics, who are unaware that most college students don't become liberal arts majors, argue that paying kids corrupts the notion of learning for education's sake alone.
Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Interesting)
And even without corruption it isn't as if a grade actually reflects how well the material was learned. Grades reflect all sorts of things that have nothing to do with education, like dedication and the ability to brown nose the teacher. Teachers reward those who repeat what the book rather than those who demonstrate actual understanding of the material.
In many schools they remove credit from students grades for frequent absence, frequent tardiness, or as a result of in school suspension. Those things have no impact on whether the student understands the material taught but school funding is determined largely by attendance metrics. Any student who fully understands the material taught in a class, at any level of education from K to Masters should receive an A in the class if the purpose of a class is for students to learn the material and the grade is a measure of how well they have learned it.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Interesting)
That depends if you think that knowledge gained is the only purpose of school and I think you would be hard pressed to make such an argument.
If you're trying to produce people who can work together and be productive members of society then it makes sense to dock people that not followed rules which directly relate to that. In-class suspensions for disruptive behavior makes a lot of sense to me in this regard although I don't consider hugging in the hallway to be disruptive.
Much of the business world involves finding constructive tasks to perform when you are bored out of your skull so it makes sense that school would discourage disruptive behavior even if the student proves that he understand the materials being taught.
Do I think schools should be this way? I don't know, society has a way of filtering out people that are destructive or at least finding creative ways to embrace the destructive nature of particular individuals. I don't think students should be robots but I also think disrupting a class is unacceptable so I guess I like it but would favor relaxing many rules that were only enacted because a few people were uncomfortable with the setting such as the banning of hugging.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, society has a way of filtering out people that are destructive or at least finding creative ways to embrace the destructive nature of particular individuals
Where else would we find police and armed forces recruits?
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I may have a low opinion of home-schooling I don't think it is wrong, with the right parents it can give a kid a great education but there's no falling back on the "kids need to be socialized" argument. It is a valid concern with home schooling and often does result in adults that are not well adjusted. That doesn't mean its impossible for a home schooled child to be well adjusted as there are plenty of success stories out there as evidence. Sports and other out of school social engagements have often
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Informative)
Having been both home-schooled and public-schooled for various parts of my education (I attended high school and elementary school, but not middle school), I can say that homeschooling is as good as the student. The "socializing" argument is easily reversed: for the outcasts (like my brother, who was teased to the point of tears on a daily basis because of his writing disability), or for those who have better things to do (I wanted to study my computer science. Learning the same elementary algebra 3 years in a row at a public elementary school just doesn't help that task along), homeschooling is a reprieve from the "socializing" that is doing a lot more harm than good.
I believe that homeschooling versus public schooling versus any other option that might be available needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Treating children as if they all learn in the same way, at the same pace, or with their age group just doesn't work. Homeschooling isn't for everyone. Neither are public schools. Both can be equally damaging to someone who isn't suited to the environment. And the "lack of socializing" is becoming less and less of an issue as the internet becomes more prevalent (and, there are plenty of places to go other than a school to interact with your peers. But your peers aren't always those who share your age -- as in my brother's case, or TFA's case, where the age group taunts the kid or is so far behind the kid that there's no comparison).
My $0.02. Probably biased :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife and I have decided we're going to home school. Researching this, we've found that studies show that children that are home school are statistically better socialized. Are there plenty of cases that we can all think of where parents home school just to shelter their children? Sure, but overall, people that enter home schooling with the right attitude about engaging children with people outside the home have children that are better off. First off, much of the time spent in school isn't spent socializ
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can honestly say that, at a minimum, 95% of what I learned in school was worthless. And, even though I'm a college graduate (3.7 GPA) - if you were to give me a 7th grade history exam, I would fail.
In fact, I'd probably fail most 7th grade exams.
The subject matter is pretty specific, even in 7th grade. Even a book I did read in 7th grade English class, now, is all but forgotten. If it was a book I enjoyed, I might remember, vaguely, the plot. Most English books stunk and I remember nothing of them.
Essentially everything I learned in school was to earn a piece of paper that said, 'This guy has a degree'. Even in my major, in college, the majority of what I learned had no use in my day-to-day activities as an adult. I studied mainframes programming languages in college. JCL, COBOL, ASM, a class in C. My first job out of college was programming in .Net - something I picked up from books while going to school.
I'd go so far as to say the *vast majority* of students are not learning for any particular reason at all. In the lower grades, they do what they are told. By college, most of the students, particularly the ones that are going to graduate - have selected a major that is going to lead to a job that will both pay their bills and be tolerable.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
95% of what you learned in school was worthless?
So sad.
You know, I did a computing degree in Computer Science. I graduated in 1976.
I reckon I used most of it. Yup, even COBOL.
But what I learned, most essentially, was nothing about computing, as such.
I learned how to solve problems.
I learned how to learn new things.
I learned how to find things from book and people (no Internet then) and use that.
I learned how to - learn.
And it sounds like you did too.
From your parents, your friends, your school teachers, your university education you learned how to find out about your world and solve problems.
On the way, you probably picked up a stack of things you might not think useful - the capital of France, the name of the highest mountain in the world, the currency used in Germany (oops, that's changed - are you keeping up? .. I suspect you are). And you learned to stay up to date. This is good. You are a much more interesting person to talk to than someone who knows none of those things (not necessarily nicer, but probably more interesting).
Not educating people has been tried - it doesn't go well. In general, the countries that give the best education to the highest proportion of its citizens tend to be at the top of the human development index - and that that do badly end up at the bottom. Coincidence? No, I don't think so. (USA is not at the top - 15th - sad, isn't it? [Disclaimer - I live in Australia, at 4th position, so I'm biased])
Learning for a reason - perhaps not. No. I mean, there just aren't that many people that speak Latin, for example, but it is still fairly widely learned.
Again, what is learning about? If you learn just one thing you are going to do badly. When I studied my degree, the logical thing to do would have been to learn COBOL. Just COBOL. That's not what happened - and my life is far richer than it would have been.
So, keep learning. Don't decry your past learning - you are a student all your life.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I don't advocate leaving kids behind just because they don't "fit in". I think everyone needs to have some place to fit... but if a child is having issues in a regular classroom it'd be nice if there were more alternatives than special education or juvenile detention centers. I've known kids who in 4th or 5th grade, having come from working-class homes, decided that they wanted to continue the blue-collar tradition. It's not a great choice but it would make a lot more sense to help the kid understand that by sending them out to apprentice themselves for a year with a tradesman or trade school (and maybe they will like it - and there's nothing wrong with training more plumbers and mechanics!) than it does to do what we currently do: "It's school! You NEED it! You'll never get by in the outside world with a 5th grade education, so shut up and do your homework!"
Education is the cornerstone of democracy and it's fantastic that we are setting our bar "high" (yeah, right) for our most precious resource - our future leaders. However, not everyone can be president. Why not encourage trade work and usable skills to help kids realize why reading and math are necessary, instead of pretending they're useless as long as they're students? As a side effect, I'm pretty sure kids who are proud of what they're doing in school ALSO get better grades, plus gain better understanding... and you don't have to bribe anyone!
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because blue collar work, "working with your hands", is shunned and looked down at. You're getting dirty. You're using your body and not your brain. I'm fairly sure, even here you will find quite a few people who consider people who learn a trade "too dumb to do something smart".
And salaries reflect that. Unjustified, if you ask me. I tried my hand at a few "blue collar" part time jobs while getting my degree. Money is always welcome, but this money was hard earned. Not to mention that I am unable to put stones on top of each other in a way that they stay that way.
Now, I'd be lying if I said I'm unhappy that my "brainy" work of programming and IT administration is better paid than plumbing and bricklaying. Hey, even I am a little selfish. I just don't understand it. If you'd ask me what's harder, it's a no brainer. On one hand pushing a few buttons on a keyboard, on the other lugging around a few 100 pounds of cement and bricks...
And if you ask me what's more important... well, try to live in a well secured server...
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Insightful)
My gym teacher made > 100k to teach kids to play softball and basketball. He was also the 'trainer' so I guess he was involved with the sports teams.
Gym teacher.
> 100k.
This is in a town where the median *household* income is 60k.
Just sayin....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't give a shit why they learn, as long as they do it.
Yes but it isn't just that they are learning it is WHAT they are learning?
Are they actually developing good thinking and cognitive skills or are they studying to a test? Will they continue to learn even outside of school? Will what they learn actually stick around?
I suspect that it does help learning some but I also suspect that the learning done is heavily geared towards taking/getting through tests which often does not translate well to real-world performance.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, it's a joke, but you'll probably be disappointed. Everyone you'll be competing with has a degree, the subject of the degree and the magnitude are now the dominate forces (even when ridiculous). In some areas right now they argue you need a PhD to do silicon verification, when in fact I think you probably don't need any degree, at all to do what the job ACTUALLY requires. It's just a matter of having a huge number of equally qualified applicants after the same job.
The problem with this, for all of you who have jobs, is not about some wishy washy bullshit about "the joy of learning", it's about manipulating metrics for maximum return. It's not about how much you learned or how well you can apply your knowledge, but how to appear best on paper to get the paycheck. When the rubber meets the road, are you any more qualified to do what you say you can do? We've all known people who groomed that 4.0 GPA (or close to it), who didn't amount to anything or who got washed ashore when they jumped in the ocean.
To be fair, it is a very applicable life skill to large corporation life, and we all have to do it from time to time. But if you look around your organizations and note the flaws, defects and absolutely mind-bogglingly braindead behavior that somehow persist...behind each one of those is usually some bogus metric that says "we're great!". The road to hell is paved with broken metrics.
To the present day businessman, nothing else matters but making money today. Thus any short term manipulation that demonstrably shows profit, is a good behavior. To almost any other profession, including responsible businessmen, you have to be sustainable through at least your career, or however long it takes to return what you owe, ride out tough times, and guarantee your future. Teaching kids how to act in their short term best interests exclusively is not at all the right way to go.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Funny)
In some areas right now they argue you need a PhD to do silicon verification
In my experience, nerdy professors are far worse at spotting fake boobs than your average joe.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Funny)
That would be silicone verification. I don't believe a degree is required for that. It also happens to be a very hands-on field.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bull Hockey.
The "Secret" to raising smart kids is to instill in them a work ethic. [scientificamerican.com] I don't see how this is any different. Providing incentive to work harder at a task and achieve results, rather than simply stumble into them due to your 'natural talent' is pretty much the default story of how people become successful.
Your arguement seems to boil down to "convincing kids to work harder is bad because kids who work harder will look better than kids who don't". Of course kids who work harder are going to come off better, that's sort of the point. Given the rest of your comment is a rambling complaint against people who test well but can't perform, I don't exactly understand how you could possibly bitch about a method which actually convinces the children to perform well so you can accurately test them at their real performance level rather than at their "I could give a shit, why should I care what my score is." level.
Other benefits (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with paying for grades is that it takes No Child Left Behind even further - it now gives a solid price for cheating and "teaching to the test".
Before you started paying kids, it was just about teachers' rewards - like pay incentives and keeping their jobs. IIRC in some districts teachers' cheating approached 30% (I could be wrong on this; read Steven Levitt's Freakonomics.)
Now you've put a solid price on cheating.
In my experience, the best people on the job aren't those who got the best grades,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I say this by first acknowledging that I have pretty much every book Heinlein wrote. But please do not bring in his libertarian wank dreams into a discussion about what is real literature. Heinlein's ideas worked in his books because he rigged the stories so that they worked in his books. Period.
He spung a good tale, and I've worn out more than a few copies of his stuff as a kid. But basing your life decisions on what a grumpy old man who had problems deciding if he was a libertarian or a facist WISHED the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Secret" to raising smart kids is to instill in them a work ethic.
You know, every person I've ever known professionally who used the term "work ethic" was so into monitoring what other people were doing that they got lost in a fit of cynical self despair. True story:
"Worker#1" was always on time, worked a full shift, clocked in and out, and produced mediocre work.
"Worker#2" was frequently late, goofed off at work occasionally, forgot to clock in or out, and produced outstanding work.
Worker#1 said to me "I don't know why you allow Worker#2 to goof off - I work much harde
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a poor excuse for a study. The underlying issues in (USA) public education today are:
#1 - We don't stratify. In other words, we uniformly put the slowest idiots in with everyone else, rather than putting the brightest in one class and on down the line.
#2 - classes move at the pace of the slowest idiot. The dumb shits hold up class, the mediocre kids learn nothing as well, and the smart kids get so bored (waiting for socially-promoted 8th-grade retards to learn stuff they already mastered in 2nd grade) that they start acting up.
#3 - real standardized testing - you know, anything that might require the kids to have learned something and prove it - has vanished. Between that and social promotion, there is no expectation on the kids to achieve anything, despite clear and repeated case studies and larger-scale studies proving that holding kids to high expectations works [thedefendersonline.com]. But since standardized testing started to mirror social problems - read: certain ethnic groups (black, illegal immigrant, etc) with near-zero family structure and a subculture that sees intelligence as race treason, were showing very poorly in the standardized tests - more and more of the tests have either been dumbed down to the point of uselessness, or have simply been done away with entirely.
Critics, who are unaware that most college students don't become liberal arts majors,
If you're going to offer the kids money, that's fine. One motivator works as well as another - when I was a kid, for example, a bunch of local restaurants chipped in and gave free meal coupons to any kid who made the honor roll.
First, though, you have to fix your metrics. The fact that they "doubled" achievement on the tests means little when the skills indicated by a "passing" grade on the newly-rebuilt "test" would, 20 years ago, have failed 2-3 grades lower.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Informative)
you forgot to add #4:
In the USA public education is now just used as a tool for political indoctrination. With extremists at both ends vying to brainwash children.
"You have to get to the children when they are young and impressionable."
and #5
#5: Schools have now been regulated to substitute parents for a generation of deliquents who are incapable of parenting. Those children just get worse until they end up in high school with no sense of personal responsibility as their parents showed none.
Now teachers are being asked to change diapers for kids who's dead beat parents never bothered to teach how to use a toilet.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to offer the kids money, that's fine.
No, it's not fine, it will have terrible long-term effects. This is called behavioral/operant conditioning [wikipedia.org], which, in the case of children, will become deeply entrenched into the personality that they will develop as they mature.
Don't confuse this with parents who give their children extra allowance if they get good grades. When the reinforcement comes from the same entity which is providing the challenge (in this case, the schools), it becomes a far more mechanical, "pavlovian" pattern. I seriously hope that some psychologists are monitoring this program.
This isn't just a matter of culture (as others mention on this thread), this could have long-term effects that are completely unpredictable.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas with parents paying for good grades would either leave kids feeling like they've gone as far as they can when their parents die, or depending on the government for being rewarded when they do good at work.
Could you explain the problem to me please ?
I really don't want to read some article you've dug up on the Internet either, I actually want to read the explanation in your own words, as you understand it.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, I can only type so much before I need to get back to work, so referring a reader to an article on Wikipedia will likely cover far more ground.
But sure, I'll bite:
If a child receives a reward from a family member, that person will be able to "bend the rules" at any point, because there's no actual contract. They could gradually provide diminishing returns, and/or decide that grades on a certain subject are worth more "starting right now" (because, for example, the student is great in math, but bad in literature, so the priority shifts to increasing the literature grade).
On the other hand, an institution is implementing a mechanism. That same institution is providing the behavior pattern that will be reinforced. No matter how many rule subsets that institution applies, it will always have to be uniform, so the children could, in effect, "game the system". For example, if getting your grade from a D to a B provides a higher incentive than increasing a grade from a C to an A, then the kids will do the math. It's an objective mechanism, which, if modified, will be modified uniformly. You won't give different students different rewards for the same exact achievement. This becomes a static, objective reinforcement mechanism which *does not exist in the real world*. When they encounter real-world motivation systems, the rules will suddenly change, and they'll have to battle their now-ingrained expectations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before I answer I have to say that we're getting into specifics which blurs the macro effect: applying these types of mechanical conditions to children, especially small children, will embed patterns into their minds that will be difficult to out-grow. You can grow out of "in bed by 10pm", but giving you material compensation for what you should realize is inherently for your benefit (education), will make you stop want to practice "educating yourself" once that compensation is gone.
To your question: Kids w
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Interesting)
Me: "Some of my friends are getting money for good grades."
Mom: "And?"
Me: "Can I get paid for my grades?"
Mom: "No."
Me: "Why?"
Mom: "Because your dad and I *expect* you to get good grades."
I thought it was not particularly fair. Not necessarily that I wasn't getting paid, but that others were when I was doing (in many cases) more work and achieving more. I said such... actually, it came out as, "If I'm doing what they're doing, why do they get what I don't?" and was told that "life isn't fair, but we're not going to bribe you to do something that you should be doing anyway."
In hindsight, I'm quite glad that they didn't. I ended up much better for it. I also think I did better overall than most of the kids who were paid. My goals were sold to me as long term from the get go. I needed to do well in school, not because I'd get some reward in 3 months, but because if I wanted to do what I want for the remainder of my life, I'd have to work to get there. It forced me to look years down the road right away. Plus, when I didn't grasp that (the idea of planning 10 years in the future when I was 8 was a pretty big thing to get my head around) they were more than happy to help me with that.
This sort of program feeds into feelings of entitlement, and to the feeling that an action requires an immediate reward. Immediate success rises, but when these kids get out of school, how are they going to react when they don't immediately get what they feel like they deserve? I have a feeling that it'll be an unhappy awakening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had to read your post a few times, mostly because I have such a hard time relating to it. You are implying either directly or indirectly that you coast or have coasted in school because there's no money in it. Also, it seems to be that you inherently find no value in education.
Well, I agree almost 100% with him.
I coasted in school because I hated it. I kicked ass on tests, but once I hit high school, I pretty much stopped doing homework. I graduated, barely, after failing one required class twice and passing an "alternate" version of that class the third time.
It's not that I found no inherent value in education. I spent plenty of time at home learning and practicing things that I cared about, and that's why I now have a well-paying job that I enjoy.
The problem was that the "educa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't stratify. In other words, we uniformly put the slowest idiots in with everyone else, rather than putting the brightest in one class and on down the line.
Putting the dumb kids in one class would only pigeon hole those kids. They would be made fun of at school, and systematically taught that they are not as good as the other kids. Whoever ends up teaching "the dumb class" would naturally have low expectations for these supposedly helplessly dumb students, and as we all know, teachers teach worse when their expectations are low. So your plan would help the kids who are already smart, while ruining the lives of kids who need the most help. Hell, many times put
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Funny)
They would be made fun of at school, and systematically taught that they are not as good as the other kids
Well, that's the problem right there. See, we need to teach the Alphas and the Betas to be grateful to the Deltas for doing all the hard work, and teach the Deltas that they're very important and that they should be grateful to the Alphas and the Betas for making all those hard decisions.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Insightful)
Survival of the most fit. What's wrong with giving the best advantages to the kids who can make the most of it? Is there some nobility to having a world full of mediocre achievers?
Putting "dumb"kids in class with "smart" kids limits the heights to which the smart kids can grow. Putting emotionally or psychologically deficient kids in class with normal kids is disruptive to the normal kids. Do you think the smart/normal kids want the dumb/deficient kids in their class? Of course not.
But guess what? The dumb/deficient kids don't want to be there either. These dumb/deficient kids would much prefer to be in classes with others that are more like them, so they can feel "normal" by comparison with their peers, and receive the appropriate teaching methodologies at a comfortable rate that allows them to feel a sense of accomplishment they otherwise could never achieve when mixed in with kids far above their intelligence.
You completely ignore the reality that many supposedly dumb kids are potential smart kids with no motivation to improve, because everyone around them tells them they are hopelessly dumb, and all their dumb friends think it's cool to be dumb.
Favorite Teacher Comment (Score:3, Funny)
All of this reminds me of one particular day in Poly/Sci when a student who was clearly incapable of following any aspect the lesson, kept interrupting and finally thought he'd be cute and ask the professor, "Why do I need to know this stuff, anyway?"
The prof's response made him an instant hero:
"You don't . . . the world will always need fry cooks. Now get up and leave."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, I only got a degree so I could put off working another six years (what? change majors a few times, and you too can turn a four-year stint in lazy paradise into six years).
Wow - Your college experience was a helluva lot different than mine. When I was in school, I was working my ass off to cover tuition, books, rent, food, etc. And earning an engineering degree besides. I was in school for 6 years too, but only because I wanted a Master's, I managed to graduate High School as a college Sophomore, and I had to bail out of school a couple of times to take internships/co-ops that paid more than I could make locally.
Lazy paradise? I remember a foggy sleep-deprived existence t
Re:Education's sake? (Score:5, Funny)
English Lit.
Re:Education's sake? (Score:4, Insightful)
"English Lit" is only half the equation. I think that for college to be a "lazy paradise" you need:
"English Lit" + "Easy source of income that doesn't mind funding your slacking ass"
As an engineering major, I could run off and co-op making 5-6x minimum wage. How people put themselves through college flipping burgers is beyond me... Especially if you're in one of those demographics that's discriminated against (or completely excluded) at scholarship time. May the gods bless the people doing that with one hand while supporting a family/kids with the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of these students actually consult with their career services departments (and I mean hunt them down) to gather internship opportunities? How many students get out there and network with working professionals (save workshops and stuff) to extend their contact pool? How many studen
Oh man... (Score:5, Funny)
Someone OWES my ass.
Re:Oh man... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, delaying gratification is hard, so it takes a huge delayed payout to motivate people. It may be cheaper overall to "front" people the money as an incentive sooner.
I see this occuring a couple places in society:
First, pensions in govt. and military jobs. They do encourage people to sign on, but I'll bet you could achieve the same incentive with a smaller, shorter-term payout that wouldn't put society on the hook for vast sums later on.
Second, doctor pay. I believe healthcare in the US would be more economical if we provided a smoother road for more people to become doctors, by paying a salary in medical school and as an intern, and making the hours better. This would drive down doctor pay, which we badly need to do.
Re:Oh man... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the subject of delayed gratification, it is even more difficult for children who have not been alive very long. Think of it this way. To a six year old who has been alive for 72 months, a 8 month school "year" is one tenth of their entire life. That is a LONG time. The equivalent time to a 30 year old is 36 months... or 3 years. Imagine telling a 30 year old that they are going to have to spend three years doing something before they get a reward. How would they react to it?
When I was growing up there were kids in my school who got paid for grades. I brought up the idea to my parents and they wanted nothing to do with it. On the other hand I had a pretty big allowance. The result is that I learned that money should come for free, and the idea of being financially rewarded for working is outrageous. I can assure you that when I have children, their allowance will be tied to their grades, and I will be there providing them the resources that they need to get good grades. When the report card shows up, they will have the opportunity to earn "a good amount" of money for their age.
As far as I'm concerned, paying kids for grades delivers the message... "If you work hard, you will be rewarded." School is the equivalent of work for kids. It gets them ready to go into the working world. It gives them an environment to develop the habits and abilities that they will need to become productive members of society. I don't have any problem rewarding them for progressing along the path to becoming a productive member of society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This country is so fucked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where'd you get the idea that my only sense of reward involves money? A single post does not the man make.
Would it be fair if I wrote,
"It's unfortunate that you can only jump to conclusions and make off the cuff character assassinations of complete strangers. But hey, I guess that's as American as apple pie! This country is so fucked."
??
The reward for the kid comes when they're twenty plus years old, and they look back and realize that their old man incentivized their learning. Although at the time they
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, cut the left-wing political bullshit fantasy land nonsense where money doesn't exist and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya. Almost everything requires money some form down the line. Money is a reward because then the kids can go buy whatever they want with it (video game, candy, etc...) of their choice instead of one specific thing.
What do you expect? "Here son, you got good grades, let's sit and stare at this beautiful sunset together!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most often "celebrity" refers either to a network tv personality (who will generally have some sort of higher education, in broadcasting if nothing else) or an actor/actress. Successful actors and actresses study a great deal to learn their art, most have studied ballet, dance, singing, and countless other skills they can add to their resume. Not to mention the numerous topics that must be studied for the individual roles, martial arts, fencing, foreign languages, rock climbing, period history and character
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You forgot to subtract the amount of that debt which is owed to US citizens. In other words, our "average" citizen may owe $37,255 via the collective government obligation, but that "average" citizen also holds most of that liability in US government bonds, either individually or collectively via Social Security trust/etc.
Dang... (Score:5, Funny)
Combine this with school choice (Score:5, Funny)
Before long children will be asking to transfer to the schools that pay the best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before long children will be asking to transfer to the schools that pay the best.
Or that have the dumbest students (easier competition).
So how much... (Score:3, Insightful)
Overjustification effect (Score:5, Informative)
This is dangerous: studies have shown that when you give extrinsic motivation for something, the intrinsic motivation tends to die away.
The paper I'm thinking of first observed that children in a class had lots of fun painting for no reason. Then, they started to extrinsically reward the children for painting, and the children started to paint a lot more. Then the rewards stopped, and so did the painting.
As the link points out, there is some debate about the truth of what I just said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is dangerous: studies have shown that when you give extrinsic motivation for something, the intrinsic motivation tends to die away.
True, but isn't this how the United States civilization works?
You stop paying someone to do something and then they stop doing that something? You know like what the RIAA and MPAA says about artists? If they don't get paid money, then no art will ever be made?
Maybe I'm being a bit facetious here but considering how the "grown up" world works in regards to doing something on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is it makes them worse students. Take 10 kids who got paid to study in grade 7 and 10 kids who didn't get paid to study in grade 7. Put them in the same class, say a high school class. Group A has no intrinsic motivation because they're not being paid anymore and fails out.
Unless you want to keep this scheme going all the way a long (pay them for grade 8, grade 9, grade 10, grade 11, grade 12, 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year, master's, ...) which sounds rather costly, you're going to hit a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Overjustification effect (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but for 99% of the people on earth, the intrinsic motivation of their day job is somewhere near 0%. So get them used to that now, when they're kids.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overjustification effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Fully agreed, but until adults change the world so that it's not all about being paid, it's a bit unfair to teach them anything else.
It's interesting how adults want to raise kids with ideal world views but won't do squat to make the world fit the view or even spend a few moments considering how (and if) it might be accomplished.
Re:Overjustification effect (Score:5, Insightful)
To people under the age of ten a six month reward cycle is a long term thing.
Hell for most college students, six months is long term.
Good education != higher pay (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S. good education does not equal higher pay. Maybe it did at one time, but certainly it is no longer true.
I would argue that the getting a degree from the right combination of institutions is the gateway to higher pay. Two examples to prove my point.
4.0 from public schools ==> transfer into 2nd tier State University==>Enter workforce with 3.8 GPA and some lesser-known interships. This combination is not likely to end in higher pay. Rather, the student will probably make average wages in the first 5 years. What she does from there is up to her, but there are meaningful limits to the probability she would end up the most rewarded.
4.0 from private school attended by elites ==> transfer into 1st tier University==>Enter workforce with 3.8 GPA and some well-known interships. This combination is most likely to end in higher pay because they are most likely to be hired by companies that pay more in the first 5 years.
More importantly the 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' dream so often told in the U.S. has vanished due to the enormous costs of attempting the latter. This is part of the enormous class disparities that have grown in the last 20 years.
So, pay your kid to earn good grades at the end of each year. It's very far into **their** sense of the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'goal' becomes 'to make more money'. It's a reasonable 'means', but it's a stupid 'goal'.
I would argue that someone who loves what they do but is paid little is more successful in life than someone with a large salary who doesn't like their job. How successful is someone really, if they spend half of their waking hours unhappy?
Therefore, all you really have to do monetarily is be stable. Go do what interests you. That'
Who'da thunk? (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that offering real rewards for achievement would make a difference is something that should have been obvious to anyone. This environment of PC-Everybody-Gets-A-Trophy has really screwed people up quite badly. I will be very glad when the whole PC mentality gets scrapped.
Re:Who'da thunk? (Score:4, Interesting)
Much like the heavily fantasized notion of an idyllic suburban 50's culture, the ultra-PC "everybody wins" culture never really existed. It's a nice bogeyman, though, for people who want to drone about how much better their upbringning was than everyone else's. The worst it ever really culminated in was "participant"-style rewards like ribbons and whatnot. And it's a moot point now anyway since 90% of school time is devoted to drilling kids with standardized testing preparation.
A movement did take foot in public schools in the the early and mid 90s that emphasized self-esteem as a major factor in success, and it makes sense. If you feel bad about yourself to the point of pathology you're probably not going to strive for anything better. You can quibble about the effectiveness of specific attempts to rectify these situations, or the value in taking emphasis and public resources away from students with healthier attitudes to try and help moody kids, but stop trying to create a false history just so you have something to point a finger at in lieu of any specific concerns or solutions.
My wife has been teaching for 2 decades now and has seen every half-baked trend come and go as administrators bounce from one artificial one-size-fits-all solution to another. There's been one thing that's been consistent through it all, and one thing only: loudmouth parents who won't shut up and let schools teach. The majority of overprotectiveness and excuse-making for failure doesn't come from the schools at all, especially not now that we have NCLB and even stricter state mandates that practically demand that children be hammered mercilessly with bullet points regardless of their performance.
The majority of feel-good nonsense and excuse for repeated or consistent failure emanates from, and has always emanated from, parents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Much like the heavily fantasized notion of an idyllic suburban 50's culture, the ultra-PC "everybody wins" culture never really existed.
Bullshit. Some of us are observing it firsthand right now.
It might work out if they actually bothered to figure out what everyone's
strengths and weaknesses are but they don't even do that. They end up giving
these weak rewards to students for things that they aren't even really good
in. Meanwhile, they do their best to destroy the innate talents of students
that don't fit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we are going to laud anecdotal evidence as sufficient for refutation then I will refute your refutation with an anecdote of my own.
I worked in a summer science camp during my undergrad studies that handed out embossed awards and ribbons to every single participant. Clearly the fact that this was done and has been done with almost every youth group leader I have spoken with is indicative that the "everybody wins" culture existed. Further, since my claim was only to its existence and not omnipresence - I
yah (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not terribly surprising. A big problem with kids (high-school included) is that they don't understand the value of an education. If you pay them then their short-sighted nature is much more likely to place a value on it.
The value of our education... (Score:4, Interesting)
After teaching in Cairo, Egypt for a year at a private school, I found out the value of an American Education.
$10,000 a year.
That's how much the richest of the richest in Cairo were willing to pay so that their kids could get an American education.
It's sad to know that we have to pay our kids to go to school now. We're teaching our children that their education has no value, which is so egregiously incorrect.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you really blame kids for being too short-sighted though?
It's one thing to blame a 40-year-old who doesn't plan ahead, it's quite another to blame a 12-year-old.
Motivation... (Score:4, Insightful)
39.6 percentage points higher than last year, when the kids were in third grade.
Does this mean that kids are 39.6% smarter than we thought they were? They just needed a reason to show it?
High-poverty (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA:
About two-thirds of the 59 high-poverty schools in the Sparks program -- which pays seventh-graders up to $500 and fourth-graders as much as $250 for their performance on a total of 10 assessments -- improved their scores since last year's state tests by margins above the citywide average.
weird (Score:5, Interesting)
When some kids were getting paid for grades ($5 for a B, $10 for an A when I was a kid). My parents refused. They would tell me that it was expected of me to get good grades, and I didn't deserve a reward for doing what I was supposed to be doing anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:weird (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't get good grades to make your parents happy. I'm pragmatic, you should study and learn as much as you can when you're a kid because it makes life a lot easier later. Trying to "catch-up" in your last year of high school because you slacked off for the last 5 years is incredibly difficult. If you pay-as-you go, put in a little work every day, it turns out to be easier than a last minute scramble.
Also being an undereducated adult is very frustrating. Do you need everything you learn in school? No. But the issue is, you don't necessarily know ahead of time what you need and what you don't. It depends on the situation you find yourself in 10 years down the road.
Of course I didn't figure that out until it was almost too late, and many kids don't get it. Teenagers tend to not believe adults when we tell them that working hard and doing good in school is for their own benefit. Probably because adults lie to children all the time, and because teenagers are bad listeners.
Re:weird (Score:5, Insightful)
They would tell me that it was expected of me to get good grades, and I didn't deserve a reward for doing what I was supposed to be doing anyways.
This still seems wrong to me. I didn't tell my kids they were expected to get good grades. I told them that KNOWLEDGE WAS VALUABLE, gave them lots of evidence that this is the case, and let them figure out the rest themselves. Although now they are in high school they know that grades have taken on a new significance because they are used as inputs to the university entrance process, they've internalized the value system that it isn't the grades that are important, it's the knowledge, the skills, the breadth of mind.
Paying for grades is a logical outcome for a society that values neither education nor knowledge, but is interested in presenting itself as a meritocratic plutocracy. Grades are valued because they will get you into "good" schools, which are not the ones that teach the most but which generate the social connections and job opportunities to put you on the road to financial success. The value of eduction never enters into the equation.
Societies get what they reward. Teaching kids that the only thing worth pursing is money results in a society where the only way to get kids to do anything is to pay them. That's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
my parents did the same thing, but i wish they hadn't. at 14 (when your grades really started to count) doing all the BS busy-work homework schools shove at you was much less interesting than the girls sitting around me, or the p.t. job that paid me.
Re:weird (Score:4, Interesting)
I went to what was at the time the largest public school system in the state, and one of the highest-rated in the entire U.S. -- Great Falls, Montana. I graduated in 1972. In our Senior class of about 560 kids, there were only TWO dropouts, both in the last month of school.
All through the system, it was the same -- peer pressure was toward academic success. In my HS, everyone wanted to be like the eggheads, who were the school heroes -- and that was even tho we had a great football team (I believe it was undefeated that year), and did very well in other athletics. You weren't allowed on a team if you didn't keep your grades up, and that WAS enforced.
Public schools used to mostly be like this, back before the era of entitlements and self-worth just for breathing. I watched it change from the earliest days... I had a 5th grade teacher (back in 1964) who got sucked into the "new methods" fully believing that "ensuring success 100% of the time" was the best thing to do -- and funny thing, we kids KNEW we were being shortchanged academically, compared to kids in the traditional classes who actually had to WORK to succeed, and who sometimes failed. I was very lucky that this was the only "progressive" teacher I ever had.
When I was in school, private schools were rather more like what we now think of as poor quality public systems -- relatively poor academically, and to varying degrees socially repressive. We could always tell the kids coming from the Catholic middle school, because they were about a year behind those of us who'd gone to public middle schools (Junior High Schools, as they were called then), and sometimes didn't seem to know how to function as normal kids.
Look in the mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the society we have built. Consumerism, greed, status seeking etc.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Compete with drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
Cost v Benefit (Score:3, Interesting)
Is $250-500/student worth it for the improvements obtained? That's not too hard to answer. Find an alternative score-improvement technique and compare the per-pupil costs.
(For a sense of scale, the per pupil cost of a full year's education in nearby Pennsylvania averages ~$10,700 [wikipedia.org]. This program would add ~5% to the cost of an education, though only if every student maxed it out.)
So, capitalism DOES work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Market Economics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rich kids that go to public school already know what this is all about.
When one is artificially paid for a commodity that is normally without value, the acquisition of that commodity for sale is just good business.
In other words I get paid 10 bucks for an A, I well pay you 5 bucks to get it for me, and make a tidy sum, or "buy your classwork from your poor student friends for better grades".
Oh well at least they are learning something! America's future at work!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's how they get an "education" in offshore outsourcing.
and on the other end... (Score:5, Insightful)
This will put even more pressure on teachers to teach to the tests. Especially in low-income areas (where these trials are being done), teachers want their students to get what they're worth.
Kids aren't "getting smarter" (by the way, what does "smart" entail?) They're learning to play the game that is the educational system.
Also, if the sponsoring [opportunitynyc.org] organizations [harvard.edu] can afford to pay each kid $250-500, where the heck are they getting those funds, and why aren't they giving it to inner-city schools in the first place?
who fucking cares (Score:4, Interesting)
as long as they learn something
Re:and on the other end... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically solve it. With all the bitching and moaning you hear about how much money wealthy suburban schools have to spend, study after study has shown that a long- or short-term influx of cash into a lousy school doesn't improve results. Ditto for transplanting students from lousy schools to wealthy schools - the students just don't improve that much. Money isn't the problem here, it is culture.
My parents did the same for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor Summary. Not 40% Improvement (Score:4, Insightful)
It was not a 40% improvement in individual scores. The article states that in some schools it was a 40% improvement in the number of kids meeting some exam standard. What the prior or new scores and what the standard is was not given. Paying may help but I doubt by 40%.
learning for education's sake? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF?
How is this worse than kids not learning in the first place?
Most kids see no value in education because they're kids.
Paying them, not only prepares them for life, it stresses the value of hard work and provides real results for that work.
Kids learn both their curriculum and that working hard provides tangible returns.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree. Why is it that some of stupidest, most close-minded comments are coming from those that are promoting "education", or "intrinsic learning", whatever the hell that is. How exactly is getting paid "extrinsic", but being forced to do something without pay "intrinsic"?
Re:Scores may go up, but I doubt comprehension is (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, not to rain on this parade, but....isn't our educational system pretty much predicated on cramming as much info into your head only to have you barf it back out on a test, never to use it again without looking it up?
No one seems to be asking the deeper questions:
Why do we have to pay kids to learn/study?
What are the specific flaws in the system?
What are we testing for?
What do we want to test for?
Are the testing methods adequate to the task?
Polly want a cracker?
Re:Scores may go up, but I doubt comprehension is (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you actually have a science, computer science or engineering degree? Except for the few who a) go into teaching or b) are the top 2% and land a reasearch posting ~90% of your university course load is completely unused on graduation. Of the 48 terms of class (4yrs @ 6 courses/term, 2 terms/yr), I think 6 (programming*2, comp architecture, sw engineering, digital communications * 2) apply to my top-paying telecom programming job.
Those who went into hw design (even more salary than programming) only use 4 courses...
The biggest waste was the 8 terms of advanced calculus. Unless you're doing primary research into magnetic field theory, knowing how to derive the LaPlace and other transforms is something you cram for, get your A, then gleefully drown in a several tankards of post-graduation partying.
Re:I had straight 8's all the way through highscho (Score:5, Funny)
You collect at the poker table. I hear having all 4 of the 8's is a really good hand. Of course, as in school, having all four A's is better, so avoid playing nerds.