The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Can Students Be Paid to Excel?
gundam470
Drunk GorillaCaliforniaRegistered User regular
Drunk GorillaCaliforniaRegistered User regular
First, the article from the New York times:
Next Question: Can Students Be Paid to Excel?
So kids are getting paid cold hard cash as incentive for good performance.
What the article shows is that kids in this particular school district are genuinely excited for tests, or more accurately, excited to get money, not about actually learning anything:
Is an incentive based education a good idea at all?
Next Question: Can Students Be Paid to Excel?
So kids are getting paid cold hard cash as incentive for good performance.
But one thing that really stood out to me was that the teachers were also able to receive cash incentives:The fourth graders squirmed in their seats, waiting for their prizes. In a few minutes, they would learn how much money they had earned for their scores on recent reading and math exams. Some would receive nearly $50 for acing the standardized tests, a small fortune for many at this school, P.S. 188 on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
This is the part that bothered me the most. I mean, it’s not as if school officials have ever cheated before when there was more than education at stake, right?If students show marked improvement on state tests during the school year, each teacher at Public School 188 could receive a bonus of as much as $3,000.
What the article shows is that kids in this particular school district are genuinely excited for tests, or more accurately, excited to get money, not about actually learning anything:
Should they reward them in college scholarships? At least in that case, if they ever want to see that money, they’ll have to pursue a higher education, which is what the goal of most of this is in the end, isn’t it?Would it be better to get the money as college scholarships? Shouts of “No way!†echoed through the room. “We might not all go to college,†one student protested.
Is an incentive based education a good idea at all?
gundam470 on
0
Posts
Also, I think this is a bad idea. Let's teach our kids that nothing is worth doing unless it results in cash!
Next up: Paying criminals to not break the law anymore.
Then again, the schools where they're implementing this really do have problems, so it's hard to judge. Anything that works to get students excited about learning is good, even if it is a "trick."
There are a lot of kids and families out there that could use this money, but it will probably end up getting spent on something frivolous. I agree that this is kind of stupid.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The article directly references how it's pretty hard for these institutions to keep students in the classroom when they know if they hit the streets they can easily pull in $50 a day or so. Kids who stay in school to learn while others are out earning money are considered the dumb ones, because these kids don't have the long-term vision to realize anything besides day-to-day living, because that's what their reality is. For those students who do survive the inner-city public education system and find themselves in a position to apply to colleges, there will probably be lots of other scholarship offers available to them with or without the $200 or so they might have earned in K-12 off test taking.
It's a good system for keeping difficult to interest kids interested in school. It has potentially negative side effects, though, as students learn simply how to take tests instead of actually learning, and by attaching academic achievement to monetary payout.
But currently it's kinda hard to deny that it has some potential.
Money up front is a far better incentive than trust funds or anything else, much as something producing an immediate high is going to be far more effective than something with a delayed effect. A trust fund or scholarship seems like it suffers from the same problem of education being its own reward: you don't realize it's an award until you apply, use, or get it, and until then, there isn't a lot of incentives offered.
they can learn better incentives when they're older, cant they? i mean, isnt this kind of like santa (presents if you're good) but on an educational scale?
1. For the most part, students in the slums would try really hard to get good grades and students in the rich suburbs wouldn't care at all.
2. The reward in this rewards system is money, and there are a number of reasons for people to argue that we should not give students money, be it lack of sufficient funding, switching to a different system, etc. If students are going to be learning with the incentive of receiving money, what is going to happen when schools do not give it to them anymore?
http://fantasy.premierleague.com/my-leagues/
The join code for the CLASSIC league: 214755-65927
The join code for the HEAD-TO-HEAD league: 5294-3346
Not every kid has parents that instill him with good values and a decent study ethic.
I'd have to see if this actually works, but if it does, I'd have no problem taking a hit on problem kids not getting a firm grasp on long term rewards if it means they don't fall behind to where they eventually drop out.
As to the kids with decent parents/a firm school ethic, I'm fairly confident they'll spend their money somewhat productively. At least, if the parents have any say in it.
On the black screen
MEAP testing in Michigan for instance used to come with $2500/yr for your first 4 semesters of school (recently knocked down to $500) for a passing grade.
Pay students in the form of scholarships for when they go to college.
I see no reason why we should directly give them drug money.
All this worrying about undercutting student's motivation is outrageous bullshit hand wringing that relies on amateurish pop psychology.
I'm always alarmed at the attitude people have toward experimentation in education. They get in their comfy armchairs and philosophize about the purpose of education and the noble nature of blah. Look, there are really really bad schools out there. These kids are being stomped by the system before they ever really had a chance at life. Other kids get to walk along a smooth path to prosperity - these kids have to storm the beach at Normandy to get to the same place and a lot don't make it.
We need to move from a comfy armchair and tea mentality to a THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE mentality.
Well I for one can't think how that would be a beneficial redress of the achievement gap.
How is a junkie going to test into any drug money?
EDIT: And should we just make sure kids never have any money at all, 'cause they're just going to get high with it? ID checks for every purchase?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_real_victims.php
Actually, because elementary schools tend to be smaller and more numerous you'd have to hire a lot more staff to do language instruction for kids 4-11 and it would cost a lot more.
But you are right, the results would be better.
Sadly, even when I convinced the council that I was living with my Grandparents (I lived outside the rollout area) they decided that I didn't qualify for some reason. I can't remember the reason, but it may have been attached to me doing well in my GCSEs and not having debated leaving school to become a wastrel.
Either way, the scheme is now national from what I understand. Luckily, it's been tweaked though so that it is now aimed at sixteen-eighteen year olds who come from less wealthy families who would otherwise pressure them to leave school to earn their keep. So it's gone from the opposite of paying to excel to paying kids who could actually use the money.
Given that most children don't understand why they are at school and resent learning, maybe bribery is a good system.
In that sense, it doesn't bother me. A cash reward after a year of work and studying doesn't seem all that horrible, especially for children in poorer families who more than likely don't see the point of long term education.
If there was some way to make it even more frequent, I'd go for that as well. Maybe just feed a daily score into student cash cards or something. If they could go home from school and recognize that they earned something that day, something tangible, fuck yes. Doing one's homework suddenly becomes an obviously wise investment.
Are you suggesting that spaghetti is frivolous?
Well, remember this was just shy of 18 years ago, give or take. [/old]
I like this idea somewhat. I'm not crazy about it, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I'd much rather they give students money based on their achievement than teachers money based on student achievement (something which, really, isn't in their control.). So I'm not a big fan of the teacher portion of this. I'd rather see that money going directly to the students, student organizations, etc.
I suppose what I'd really want is an incentive program for the students and all around higher pay for teachers in general.
I dont know what the answer here is -- I never really think "Parenting Classes" sound particularly effective, but some way of incentivising the parents might be another interesting idea? Parents taking an interest in their kids would have an effect on other areas aside from academic achievement too. If kids feel that their parents are actively engaged in their upbringing, that cant be a bad thing.
I would rather tax payer money, currently being wasted in the educational system, be used in a manner that is producing results.
Eventually, like all incentives, it will be taken for granted. So there are no long term adverse effects limited to this specific type of incentive program.
I noticed a few immediate responses to the article earlier in this thread disagree'd with this idea. I guess getting paid to work isn't an idea familiar to those posters. Maybe they think, like the government, the old ways of education are the best ways, even though they are clearly failing and have been for decades. Again, if money is going to be dumped into education, regardless of outcome, why not dump it into a method producing results?
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
So essentially, they are being paid extra to do a good job rather than a shitty one? Do we generally pay people to do jobs badly?
Ain't the public sector grand!
Pay kids for results, not perfect but worth a try is it not?
Paying teachers for kids results? Again not the perfect solution, but hell anything that makes doing that job better is good in my books.
Maybe we should pay parents for kids results?
Or kids that do well get an all expense paid trip to a better school?
I guess my overall point is... FUCKING TRY something. The current system is broke. This will not be fixed by one idea. This will be fixed by many small ideas, each one grabbing a different group of kids and helping them to care.
When there is this much of a labor shortage and even moderately good teachers can't always produce an improvement in such conditions, yes.
If even moderately good teachers can't produce an improvement, why promise money for something that will likely not occur?
It's not something that can be fixed at that level, I think.
The performance of a teacher is frequently out of their direct control, particularly in situations like in the OP. Even outstanding teachers are rarely in positions to overcome a horrible home environment. Education is effected by far, far more than just the teacher's performance and, in all fairness, teachers get shit pay for how vital a role in society they have. To use an analogy, it would be like dropping you in Iraq and then complaining that there's still violence and why haven't you stopped it?
As to the intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward system, having an extrinsic system where there isn't an intrinsic one is better than nothing at all. The personal sense of accomplishment is superior to straight monetary rewards, but if you're in an environment that doesn't value educational achievement over fiscal gain, getting good grades for the sake of getting good grades becomes a rather far-fetched concept. I suspect that this is also filtered through the lens of this forum, as I suspect many of us were able to sleep through class and still excel. The situation in the OP is not the same as me sleeping through class and still pulling "A's."
I'm not saying I agree with the bonus, as it could go to better uses, but it's not unreasonable.