Should Kids Be Bribed To Do Well In School? 706
theodp writes "Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr. did something education researchers almost never do: he ran a randomized experiment in hundreds of classrooms in Chicago, Dallas, Washington, and New York to help answer a controversial question: Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School? He used mostly private money to pay 18,000 kids a total of $6.3 million and brought in a team of researchers to help him analyze the effects. He got death threats, but he carried on. His findings? If incentives are designed wisely, it appears, payments can indeed boost kids' performance as much as or more than many other reforms you've heard about before — and for a fraction of the cost."
Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it turns out to be a better use of resources and we turn out students who do better in school then it can't be all bad.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
because kids aren't adults, and school isn't optional work?
Absolutely. That's why kids don't need motivation for school work. They just do it as if by magic.
why do you think adults require motivation?
In my case, a cursory examination of human behavior has yielded a great deal of evidence to indicate that people need motivation or they don't do the work.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure if many people read TFA but an interesting result:
Schools in Dallas got the simplest scheme and the one targeting the youngest children: every time second-graders read a book and successfully completed a computerized quiz about it, they earned $2. Straightforward -- and cheap. The average earning would turn out to be about $14 (for seven books read) per year.
And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year -- and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped.
The cheapest program produced the best results.
One clue came out of the interviews Fryer's team conducted with students in New York City. The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn't seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. "No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher," Fryer says. "Not one."
We tend to assume that kids (and adults) know how to achieve success. If they don't get there, it's for lack of effort -- or talent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if many people read TFA but an interesting result:
Schools in Dallas got the simplest scheme and the one targeting the youngest children: every time second-graders read a book and successfully completed a computerized quiz about it, they earned $2. Straightforward -- and cheap. The average earning would turn out to be about $14 (for seven books read) per year.
And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year -- and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped.
The cheapest program produced the best results.
One clue came out of the interviews Fryer's team conducted with students in New York City. The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn't seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. "No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher," Fryer says. "Not one."
We tend to assume that kids (and adults) know how to achieve success. If they don't get there, it's for lack of effort -- or talent.
doesn't really matter to me. The kids would figure it out. Negative motivation (YOU'LL FAIL!!!!) never worked for me, I just tried to do the minimum amount of work necessary. Why wouldn't I? I have friends from my same [top tier engineering school] that dumped their lives into their work and their offer letters are less than mine. They have 3.9, I have 2.8-2.9 at my school (avg is 2.9).
The interesting thing is when I was cooping (like an internship except you go back to the same company) I was dying to have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Starvation isn't a sufficient motivator?
Only if there is a difference. If I starve whether or not the work gets done, then I'm not motivated.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids. Kids didn't ask their parents to be born. Their parents didn't ask the kids: do you want to be born and go through this? None of that happened. Kids are forced to be born, forced to do whatever the grownups tell them, forced to learn all of this nonsense, forced to become 'productive members of society' and by the society they are often forced to have their own offspring just so that there will be the next generation of 'productive members of society' ready to pay for the mistakes of the former ones.
Sure kids need motivation to go to school. There has to be some motivation and if all other motivations fail, money just may be the last resort.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn you must have had a shitty childhood.
My kids aren't "forced" to go to school. They love it. They love learning. They take on learning tasks all by themselves, without financial incentives.
They're "productive members of society" already. They're not being forced to do anything; they enjoy life. Part of enjoying life is learning, stretching your mind and your body.
I disagree with paying kids for good grades because it incetivizes cheating, and it removes the main reason for learning: it's fun.
Think
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never met a kid who said he'd rather never have been born altogether.
- nice to meet you then.
Part of me wants to agree with you, but... (Score:2)
As adults we're motivated by money at every turn.
That said, it would be nice to be able to teach our kids that pure work ethics will do the job and give them their just compensation. It rarely works out that way though, unfortunately.
It would be even better for these people to find out why kids aren't doing well in the first place. It usually comes down to boredom or just plain horrible teachers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's the case. Money is not an end in itself, it's a form of delayed gratification. It's not bad, but it doesn't trump all other kinds of motivation. When these other motivations apply, the money factor becomes irrelevant, and can be the source of serious mistakes in understanding.
Food, sex, etc. are stronger motivators than mon
Re: (Score:2)
because kids aren't adults, and school isn't optional work?
Getting straight A's and B's has always been optional. C's are a passing grade; why do any better if you don't have any real motivation to?
why do you think adults require motivation?
Adults get rewarded for doing shitty work, whether that entails learning a new programming language in a week or going out into the Sahara desert and digging for fossils for months on end. Either way, they get rewarded for doing something and meeting expectations, why not get kids accustomed to doing exactly what they'll be doing as adults, rather than forcing them to do
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
how about this: if every student gets an A, then everyone gets an equal share of the money... if anyone doesn't get an A, then no one gets any money and it is refunded to tax payers.
That will simply end badly. A 'young anarchist' or a 'rich kid' who wants to screw the other kids can cost the others who 'worked hard' to earn their share; Ralphie Wiggam can be in your class and you're screwed; some bullies will threaten marginal kids who will then fail due to fear and stress; etc. Give them all a "bonus" if everyone gets at least a "C"? Sure. A better bonus for better average grades? OK. All or nothing? That always ends with 'nothing'.
if we know that all "C" students are really just "A" students who haven't been sufficiently greased to do the required work, then what's the motivation of society to make that happen? are the children any more useful to society because they completed more busy work in elementary school to get a few extra gold stars to increase their letter grade?
I understand that you aren't thrilled with the idea o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry but how do you so drastically fail to understand what I said?
What I said was that most students do NOT enjoy learning, and they do NOT enjoy it because of how they have been made to do it. I am suggesting that their failure to enjoy learning is not the way people naturally are. It's an artificial product of the way we have chosen to teach them, and as suc
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know how to make this more clear to you.
He might make better progress if you offered some sort of financial reward for his comprehension of your opinion,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no.
Just any system which you suggest.
If you penalize people for things which are completely out of their control you don't achieve much.
If you'd read TFA you'd have noticed that the best results weren't from rewarding for end results but rather for activities which lead to better results like reading books.(it also happened to be exceptionally cheap)
A lovely little quote from TFA:
Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kids generally have food and a place to live without worrying about it -- they expect it. Kids also generally have a pretty short term outlook. Remember when you felt like summer vacation would last forever or the school year would never end? At 14, it's hard to think realistically about what one's life will be like at 35. So you give short term motivators to kids, they do well, and life at 35 is all that much easier because somewhere along the way, they picked up long-term thinking skills without being hampered by blowing off homework and playing video games.
However, as an intentionally child-free taxpayer, I really do hate paying for other people's sprogs.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as an intentionally child-free taxpayer, I really do hate paying for other people's sprogs.
View it as an investment into the future to ensure that there's doctors and nurses and taxpayers to take care of you in your retirement.
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as an intentionally child-free taxpayer, I really do hate paying for other people's sprogs.
And many of those sprogs might hate paying for your Medicaid and retirement.
Much as some intentionally-childless moan about "having to support other people's children", technically it is the other way around. By deciding not to have children, you aren't "receiving less from the government", economically you are co-investing less in future taxpayers. From a tax and social policy perspective, in the current system, it is the height of selfishness to decide to be childless and put neither the money nor the child-rearing effort into maintaining society into the future.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
why do you think adults require motivation?
If I wasn't being paid to work, I certainly wouldn't be doing it. Playing with the kid is much more fun, heck watching TV is more fun. There's a bunch of my own stuff I'd like prefer to do as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that teach them? Don't do anything regardless of what it is unless you're "bribed".
That said I know I will get flamed for saying that, but I think it instills an attitude of don't anything unless you get paid, loses touch with what education is and should be.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
It teaches them the way the real world works. Do adults do their jobs because "they are supposed to" or "out of the kindness of their own hearts." The real world pays you for the work you perform, why preclude children from that, just because we can.
If it works and it is more cost effective then other types of reform, then more power to them.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Do adults do their jobs because "they are supposed to" or "out of the kindness of their own hearts."
I do my job because I love it.
I've been offered more money (sometimes *much* more) to do something else. Each time, I turned it down.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally agree. Perhaps part of the reason people are so ticked off about this, is because they've come to believe the lies that effort is uber-important. In real life, effort is important only insofar as it enables one to achieve results. Effort, on its own and by itself, is worthless -- it's like having fuel but no engine in which to burn it and convert the fuel to work.
To put this in a bad car analogy -- given two mechanics, one who tries earnestly to do a good job but is actually terrible and who could barely change a tire correctly, and another who sleepwalks through his day but solves problems effortlessy and quickly, most people would chose the second guy(*) because when all is said and done, it is the end result that actually matters.
(*) Assuming the second guy has just enough motivation to drag his butt out of bed and show up at work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you get bribed to go to work?
For most kids, education is pain, and toil, frustration, anger, boredom, and tears.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
What does that teach them?
The value of their work.
That said I know I will get flamed for saying that
Stop 'baiting.
but I think it instills an attitude of don't anything unless you get paid, loses touch with what education is
What education is? Factory-job preparedness training? Repeated lessons in submitting to authority? Day-prisons for teenagers?
I'm more worried that they'll get paid for grades and that learning things is not the best way to get good grades (obeying teacher is).
Re: (Score:2)
What does that teach them? Don't do anything regardless of what it is unless you're "bribed".
Sure. That's a pretty good life lesson. Employers, associates, friends, etc will sometimes use you up and spit you out, playing on your guilt or other weaknesses in order to get more out of you. Understanding that you do things for a personal reason (be it a "bribe" or something else) helps protect you from this sort of exploitation.
That said I know I will get flamed for saying that, but I think it instills an attitude of don't anything unless you get paid, loses touch with what education is and should be.
Nonsense. It's a practical skill that could help you do better in your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, realize there has to be some motivation to go to school, nobody asked the kids before they were born: do you want to exist? Do you want to go to school? Do you want to have to work?
No, nobody asked anything, they forced the kids into this world, forced them to school, forced them to work, forced them to buy garbage they don't need, forced them into all kinds of things, sometimes forcing them into wars and to die also for causes that are beyond their own reasons.
Should people be always rewarded? If t
Re: (Score:2)
I think I should have said "in other words" instead of "also"...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? It doesn't create any kind of entitlement. it teaches them that if they want something (like money) they work (study) for it.
It's not like we give them the money if they fail! If anything it teaches the reverse of entitlement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an entitlement. Because you are not supposed to get payed for eduction: education is a service that is provided to you!
Later in life they'll have to pay to get a college degree, a PhD, and so on.
What you should be teaching your son is that if they don't finish school they won't be able to get a job.
On the other hand, it will be a shock when they find out that the only real way of getting money is doing an effort for other people and not for themselves.
If you want to teach your kid the value of work tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least 11 successful final report cards. 10 final report cards and you'll always be leasing the car, 9 or less and you wont be able to lease one. 15 successful final report cards and you can afford a house + car. 18+ final report cards and you'll get a very nice house a bmw and people call you Dr.
The Problem (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
Can any economists comment? This actually makes a kind of sense. If you ask a kid to do some work (actually actively studying to rapidly learn IS work) you gotta pay em. Society would benefit quite a bit more than paying the kids would cost if the kids were to learn what they need to learn on a faster timescale. I'm positive that if the funding were there, kids of average intelligence could easily enter college at age 16 if they were to actually work hard at learning. I certainly was ready then.
next use it on teen girls (Score:4, Interesting)
pay them not to get pregnant! pit greed vs. breed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Greetings and Salutations...
You apparently have no clue how the welfare system works these days. Perhaps you should find a DHS worker and ask them about it.
regards
dave mundt
A few sides to this. (Score:3, Insightful)
(+) "If it works, then why not?"
(+) "It's capitalism, comrade!"
(-) "But it's against our ideals, people should learn for the sake of learning!"
Frankly, I'm up for anything which improves the effectiveness of our education system at this point as long as it doesn't constitute an outright human rights violation. The system is broken. If you can prove that X provides significant gains, then we should at least look into it.
/Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
*ducks and runs from thread*
"Bribe"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Death Threats? (Score:2)
What in the hell is wrong with this world when people get death threats over an issue like this?
death threats REALLY?!
*shakes his head*
Re:Death Threats? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What in the hell is wrong with this world when people get death threats over an issue like this?
What's wrong is that some people are too entrenched in thinking they are right.
When you are absolutely, 100%, certain that you are right, and you think someone is doing harm to children. Well, since you are absolutely right, then of course that guy is really doing harm to children.
Well then, if someone is going to harm children, and will not stop when you tell them do, sending out death threats is not such a big deal, since you are "saving the children" right?
In my opinion, the greatest evil can only be do
Behaviorism run amok (Score:5, Interesting)
Blatantly behaviorist. Extrinsic motivators are easily extinguished. We need to find and nurture intrinsic motivators. Unfortunately, this is hard, and the educational establishment is looking for easy solutions. Go read "Punished by Rewards" by Alphie Kohn
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll only read that book if you pay me.
Re:Behaviorism run amok (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what these intrinsic motivators are?
I'll tell you:
1. Thirst.
2. Hunger.
3. Fear (of death, of pain...)
4. Sex drive.
and much much further than this is
X. Curiosity.
In most people natural curiosity does not lie within the defined boundaries of what is required from them at schools.
Most schools and most classes do not promote curiosity and most people cannot be curious about most things that are required from them at school.
How do you suggest making everyone have the same intrinsic motivators to do some insane work defined by some insane curriculum, most of which is really only directed at creating an obedient working unit and like it?
Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
If done right, this might not be a bad idea. The traditional education system in the US has changed a lot in the past 50+ years:
Adding another carrot to the arsenal can't be too bad, given all the problems students face now.
This may well boost their performance as STUDENTS (Score:2)
It's up to the parent to decide whether or not these bribes actually add to the overall success of their child in the long run. It will take some convincing for me to think this is likely. If success means being a privileged snot or a poor loser, so be it. If success means happiness, self-worth, longevity or value to society.. Well, that's not as simple as choosing between a stick and a carrot.
In the private sector (Score:4, Interesting)
Its called 'pay for performance'
(I think that bribe is not the correct term here.)
Experiment trumps theory. (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing I love about this is someone actually did science in education. That's extremely cool. Normally education comes down to one person arguing with another with little to no evidence, and the whole things just winds up being an argument that's really about values, political opinions, or personal opinions, but purports to be about outcomes. "Thing Y won't work because thing Y is "bad" or "Thing X won't work because it conflicts with my religion and/or political viewpoint" or "Thing Z will work because I think it will". From a scientific viewpoint these could all be viewed as untested theories. That's not necessarily bad.. but continuing to argue about them and not doing the experiment is... well stupid.
Richard Feynman talked about this 25 some years ago in one of his books. IIRC his main point was how teaching is ruled by "method of the day" as if it's just fashion, but very rarely does anything bother to find out what actually works.
So, now we have a good reason to suspect that some form of rewards for learning actually do seem to work. That doesn't mean the values argument is invalid, but it certainly does show the values argument for what it is and not a hidden attempt to discredit the validity of the outcome.
What is a bribe? (Score:5, Informative)
The word, “bribe,” has two very different common meanings.
The first is a payment to somebody to do something illicit. It might or might not be something the person objects to doing, but it is something against the rules. A border agent might or might not think smoking pot is a good idea, but if you pay him to look the other way while you drive your “plant tissue samples” across the border, that’s a bribe.
The second, and the usage implied here, is a payment to somebody to do something they don’t want to do but which isn’t illicit. It’s especially applied to things that most people think the person should want to do without compensation but, for whatever reason, the person isn’t interested. If you offer to pay your spouse to fold the laundry, that’s often considered a bribe.
But, clearly, almost all paid work falls into the second category. While the work I do isn’t objectionable and pays well, there’s simply no way I’d do it unless you paid me (and paid me well). There are other things I’d rather do for money, but they don’t pay as well. And there are still other things I do and would do that either don’t pay or that I have to pay to do.
So, unless you think your boss is bribing you to go to work, or unless you’d happily give up your paycheck but still continue at your job, it is most hypocritical to call what’s described in this article a bribe. You might wish that students would put in maximum effort even if they don’t get a cash reward, but your boss wishes the exact same thing of you.
Whether or not paying students is an effective end economical method of turning them into honorable and effective citizens is a valid topic of discussion, but such payments are most emphatically not bribes.
Cheers,
b&
Re:What is a bribe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, thanks for that post. The use of the word "bribe" seems calculated to imply that paying kids for their performance in school is somehow sleazy or immoral, which is absurd given that almost everyone pushing this viewpoint expects payment for their performance at work. The idea that good grades should be their own reward sounds fine and noble, but it has no connection to reality, and most kids figure this out pretty fast.
Can backfire in the long term... (Score:5, Insightful)
Studies show that adding pay to a task decreases the internal perceived motivation for that same task. Actors conclud, subconsciously, that money is why they did it. Hence they are less likely in the future to do it unless they are paid again. Perilous to do this with the pursuit of knowledge.
Of course in a typical public school, there are already serious problems with busywork versus genuine pursuit of understanding. In that context, payment might be the right thing to do, because as others have noted, payment is indeed what humans expect in exchange for busy work.
Did the same in the 70's (Score:3, Interesting)
While teaching 9th grade science in the 1970's I decided to see what would happen if I started paying $5 for the highest grade on weekly tests.
Kids who were normally making C's and D's suddenly began getting A's and taking the $5. The kids which normally got A's didn't do as well.
I was accused of being a Communist. My response was that they were working for money, why can't their kids.
Grades themselves are bribes (Score:3, Interesting)
In Montessori there are no grades, but rather detailed itemizations of proficiency in each exercise combined with qualitative evaluations by the guide.
Although not trained in Montessori, the author and speaker Alfie Kohn is famous in the Montessori community for his book "Punished by Rewards" and others. See his YouTube [youtube.com], "It's bad news if students are motivated to get A's".
Who Knew? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knew that sufficiently motivated kids could get good grades? What a stunner. It's absolutely mind boggling.
All this study does is point out the obvious. What it doesn't do is show how to teach students how to find reasons within themselves for getting good grades. As lack of self-motivation is the real problem standing between most kids and realizing their personal potential(both grade-wise and in life) that's where the studies should focus.
I remember Algebra class in high school. It wasn't all that hard, but I hated it as no one ever told me what it was good for, and I couldn't visualize any use for it. I ended up dropping it because I would have gotten a D in it, while I pulled straight A's in Geometry with hardly any effort on my part. The difference? My interest level. My internal motivation. I loved pulling out my Geometry book and going to Geometry class. I hated pulling out my Algebra book and going to Algebra class, even though I liked the teacher.
A decade later I entered a college technical course which required algebra skills for the electrical theory it taught. I aced both math and electrical courses as I finally finally saw what algebra was used for, and became motivated as I found electrical theory fascinating.
In my late 40s I went back to school again and aced math classes related to electronics that the college said I had no business even taking with my math background. Those classes combined algebra and trig, which I'd never studied at any level in school, but yet I breezed through them with minimal effort. My total exposure to trig before those classes? A small, and I mean small, trig textbook written in the late 1800s. It was approximately 4"x6" and about.5" thick, including the hard cover that I had spent maybe 4 or 5 hours total reading, but it made sense to me
We need to study how to motivate, how to get kids to understand how the skills taught in school will affect their life after school. Once they understand those things they will apply themselves as it's in their own best interest and they will recognize it. They aren't stupid, they're just taught more about political correctness, and that the world owes them, in school these days than they are about real life, how they can succeed, and what that success will mean to them in quality of life after school.
This study shows short-term motivation works. But what we really need is to understand how to encourage long-term motivation in our kids. Teaching them that they are entitled to the government taking care of them from the cradle to the grave isn't motivational in the least. It's demotivational, if that's actually a word. It teaches them that they can get by with the least effort possible, and that's a recipe for disaster-in-the-making for our country's long-term future. Why? If our kids aren't self-motivated to succeed, our country will fail right along with them.
Re:a better question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:a better question (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Teachers Unions
Re:a better question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm a proud Ahmurkin
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny that computer geeks have no problem programming and performing other advanced mental tasks, yet inflict serious damage and neglect the health of their own body. Try using those brains to drop the weight and improve your cardio. If the Jocks can do it, no reason you can't too.
Exactly!
And if computer geeks have no problem programming and performing other advanced mental tasks, no reason jocks can't do it too!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Music is good for more than just entertainment. It can be used to engender in people a feeling of beauty or the sublime. It can be used to train and teach people, make them better people. It can be used for relaxation, a sleeping aid, meditation, or even an aphrodisiac. Heck, it can even be used for subliminal messaging.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So the children of rich parents should do better in school than those of poor parents? Purely because they have more money?
I'm not advocating one way or another, but it's the first question that popped in to my mind when I read your post.
Re:a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
Our current education system is failing. Its very evident by looking at any national ranking charts that compare countries. We need to do something before things crash. And believe me, when it crashes it will affect YOU. Crime, the economy, poverty, health care. What wouldn't be fair would be you reaping the benefits of education without paying for it. Public education (yes, even the crappy system we have now) helps EVERYONE, those without children, those with children in private school, the elderly who's children have already finished school, EVERYONE.
Re:a better question (Score:5, Insightful)
what the hell?
This program is an evidence based experiment.
That's not ignorance.
Ignorance is throwing round rhetoric about how you think the world should and shouldn't be based on nothing but your own self importance.
Re:a better question (Score:5, Informative)
'as a taxpayer, i don't think it's fair that i'm already paying for your child's education,...'
You're not; you are paying back the cost of your education. That is being invested in the education of the current students, who will, in turn, pay it back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the free availability should be motivation enough. it was for me.
I think the projection of self onto the societal-level of decision making gives us policy that only works for a few people. This is especially the case when you apply yourself as (presumably) an adult as a decent model for today's children. Their situation is invariably different from yours and using your own childhood as a model for a wide swath of today's youth is probably not going to match up to the needs and expectations of today.
Re:a better question (Score:5, Insightful)
it was for me.
And thus the entire problem with trying to inject rational and evidence based thinking into the system is summed up perfectly.
The people who do well are the people who succeed in the current system.
The people people who succeeded in the current system no matter how poor the current system is believe that only they and people like them ever *should* succeed or do well.
and so we see clouds of vitriol like the above.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your whole family still benefits greatly from living in a society which strives to educate its members (which is also easier to efficiently do en masse as far as specialised knowledge/equipment/etc. are involved; gives benefit of socialisation; doesn't mean typically one parent being out of workforce)
Re:a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
...so you think the world is fair?
Of course not, but it is our duty as humans to make it as fair as we can and certainly if you don't care about fairness why should we care what you think is fair with regard to your taxes? You can't bitch and moan about how you don't think said taxation is fair and expect anyone to listen if you ignore the unfair things said taxation is addressing.
Re:a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
While I generally feel the government shouldn't be in charge of raising our kids, they ARE in charge of educating them (if your kids go to public school).
Also, unlike so many other government programs and tax breaks, this actually helps out poor families more than rich families. If little Delray can make money by studying, he's less likely to go "hang" with a bad crowd and steal money. He even has a chance to help provide himself with a better life now AND later.
Re:a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
...do you understand how much money can be made stealing, or the more lucrative drug dealing?
Yes, do you? Read the chapter of Freakonomics entitled "Why Do Drug Dealers Live With their Parents". It has some good numbers to show making more than minimum wage working as a crack dealer is sort of like playing basketball for a living... that is to say, you can make a lot of money, but any individual almost certainly won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Families that are 'better off' than others would still probably see an improvement in their children's performance because there is a big difference between "having money" and "earning money". The latter has a very different feel and has the potential of
Re:a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a job; you get paid if you accomplish what you're told to do. You don't get grounded if you fail to perform, you just stop getting money.
Re:a better question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:a better question (Score:5, Insightful)
A job is better than prison which is the closest analog to the current school system.
Students are expected to work extremely hard for an extremely long time with no short term payoff(indeed with short term penalties) and the only possible payoff being far enough off that the time could be measured in significant fractions of their entire lifespan so far.
Some kids manage this.
Many don't and that's a failing of the system and not just the individual.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm...
currency = work ethic
fiat * currency = fiat * (work ethic)
;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to say "should".
They real question is what gets the best results.
Your argument seems to be based entirely on your own ego.
As the guy in TFA put it.
"Kids should learn for the love of learning,"
"But they're not. So what shall we do?"
Re:a better question (Score:4, Insightful)
How does that describe slavery any more than most jobs?
"Someone else provides the workers money (which buys the food and home). Those providers have expectations of the workers. No further motivations should be expected let alone required."
Re:a better question (Score:5, Informative)
What? Providing for my kids and sending them to school is the same as slavery? Just in case you did not notice, most slaves were not sent to school during the day, but to work. School benefits the child, not the parent.
Slavery is a horrible institution that is rightfully banned. It irks me when people compare working for wages or going to school to slavery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
f their parents aren't expected to be capable of motivating their children, then why should society be expected to be capable of doing it?
i don't want to pay children to do what they are expected to do, when they aren't penalized in the same form for not doing it.
Move away from the emotional aspects of it and consider it this way:
Let's start with the premise that you want to see our schools do a better job educating our kids.
You have proposal A, with a cost of X and an effectiveness of Y
You have proposal B,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:a better question (Score:5, Insightful)
the long term effects of paying children money for marks in school is not clear, and in many ways seemingly dangerous.
The compensation is deferred, but we already do pay students to do well in school. I had a full ride plus in college; that was a direct result of doing well in high school. I am a physician now, and the very good income I make is only available to people who did very well in school. "Study hard and you'll get a scholarship to college and a good job afterward" may be a lot more indirect than "Here's some cash, kid" but it pretty much only tested whether I was able to handle delayed gratification - otherwise it was very much paying me for doing well in school. This proposes to push that payment scheme down to kids who can't do decades-long delayed gratification, i.e. most of them., in order to improve their outcomes from education.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I threw away my mod points to reply to this, but I thought it was important.
One of the schools I went to as a child had a "Gold Card" program that was basically a incentive program to get good grades. Instead of handing out cash (which is the wrong approach, i'll explain in a bit) for good grades you would earn free items at local businesses. I remember a local video st
Re:a better question (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't choose your parents, that's why civillised countries provide free education for children, free (or subsidised) medical care and a small amount of money for food and clothes if the families are very poor.
Parents have a great responsibility to their children, but as we all know, many irresponsible and incapable people have children.
Re:a better question (Score:5, Informative)
You don't like how your taxes are spent?
Welcome to society, where everyone doesn't like a program or two that their tax money funds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Parents' belief that they know what's best for their children is usually egotism.
What's our responsibility when they're clearly wrong? (i.e. the vaccination-autism conspiracy theorists)
To protect parental rights? To protect the children themselves? To protect the rest of us?
Determine the goal before you look for a solution and you're more likely to find it.
Re:a better question (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhm, no, it doesn't. You can have a heartfelt opinion that raping children is a nice, cheap form of entertainment or that Hitler destroying the Jews was the greatest accomplishment of mankind. Nobody is going to take you more seriously if you're moderated down for it or outright censored.
As far as "valid?" Valid is the opinion.
Interesting. Personally I think that somebody who judges people based on an opinion they're supposing based on a moderation choice rather than one that person has even expressed is a self-important moron. And judging by your other posts in this thread, that's exactly what you are. You are consistently smug, insulting, dismissive and superior, with an obvious belief that anybody who doesn't agree with you not only has a lesser opinion, but is a lesser person; a lesser intellect.
In fact, this entire post rings hollow. Perhaps you should go back and apologize to some of the people you were rude and insulting to first and then talk about valid, honest opinions. Or does this sort of thing only work one way for you?
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
You don't even know these people. You don't even know who these people are, much less why they may have moderated it the way they did. What if it is just a valid, honest opinion that he was trying to start a flamewar? Never even crossed your mind, did it? You just decided the person who was moderated down was right and these mods most be puerile, childish, emotionally overreactive, dismissive, unthoughtful, immature so-called adults. All things you've said in the course of, what, 200 words or so? About people you know nothing whatsoever about, including their own views on the actual topic at hand which you nonetheless saw fit to assume and lambast in their absence?
Oh, please, get over yourself. You're not that important. Drop the fucking "I ARE TEH MARTYR!!" crap. If people want to mod you into oblivion, it's because you deserve it. And hey, guess what? They have FOURTEEN MORE MOD POINTS to moderate whoever they please whichever way they please for whatever reason they please. You know this. You're a self-important ass, but not stupid; so I see no conclusion but that you're trying to puff yourself up.
And before you go ahead and guess my own opinion incorrectly, I actually agree with you. I think his post is absolutely worthless, wishful thinking not worthy of even acknowledging -- but it's not flamebait. Surprising, huh?
Re:It does work, but you have to keep paying them. (Score:4, Informative)
The experiments so far indicate that paying students for results improves only the results paid for. Pay for attendance, you get attendance. Pay for grades on quizzes, you get grades on quizzes. End of year scores don't improve much, if at all. And when the money stops, so does the improvement.
You might want to read the article. It states quite clearly that paying kids for books read increased standardized test scores on reading and that these were long term gains
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
paying kids for books read increased standardized test scores
It also instills the value that you shouldn't read unless you're being paid to. This is a well known downside, covered in most behavioral / developmental psychology degree programs.
A similar drawback exists for standardized tests themselves as well as technical certificate testing. The testing rarely translates into significant real-world problem solving abilities. As with pay-for-study the instruction becomes valued for it's immediate result a
Re:It does work, but you have to keep paying them. (Score:5, Interesting)
For the last year and a half of undergrad I had a job working at the local television station. For $5 an hour (about 1.5x minimum wage, pretty good at the time) 40 hours a week - I was doing pretty good for myself. The position essentially boiled down to watching TV 8 hours a day (it was a little more technical than that, but the technical part became second nature and I was basically watching TV 8 hours each day.)
When I graduated and got a 'real job' and went off into the real world ... I stopped watching TV. Nobody was paying me to watch TV, so why would I watch TV for free? Seemed stupid to me for people to watch television for hours at a time, for free.
Envision the practical applications of this theory - paying someone briefly for undesirable behavior, then stop paying them - they won't do that any more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might want to read the article. It states quite clearly that paying kids for books read increased standardized test scores on reading and that these were long term gains
Which actually makes a lot of sense. Reading is a skill, which must be developed by practice. If the children read more, they develop their reading skill more, and that higher skill level will provide an advantage to them in the future (potentially, for their entire life).
The problem isn't that children don't "love to learn". They do. It's natural for them. The problem is that children don't "love to learn" the subjects that adults think are important. If paying them as a mean to direct their learning
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT when they paid the kids to do things that you need to do to learn, like read, or attend class, the standardized test scores improved, even after the bribes stopped. This is great stuff to know. To continue all we need to do is figure out what it takes for kids to learn,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if paying you to read the article might have gotten a better result for reading comprehension.