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.
I don't think going with the standardized tests as the measuring stick is ideal. It might be the easiest to keep track of, but I think it would be the least effective. Telling kids they could get money for a big test at the end of the year isn't going to motivate them as much as paying them for the first test they take. It would just motivate kids to cram for that one big test at the end of the year, instead of paying attention during the whole school year, which is when they're being taught the stuff that's going to be on the standardized test.
So I think it would end up just rewarding the kids who do well anyway, without changing much for the others. Some marginal effects, but nothing major.
---
As far as payment, I think cash is fine. Secondary education is not always the ultimate objective. Teaching a kid to read, write, and do simple math is worthwhile on its own. Elementary school is not the place to produce scholars. It's where we produce people who are at least moderately competent on an intellectual level. If cash can help in that endeavor, then go for it.
Lots of parents dont care about what thier kids do in school. Sure my parents did, and my friends parents did, but i lived in a suburb, not the inner city. So if you can get the kid to care on his own for a monetary reward then that is fine by me.
But, you have to give incentives for both teachers and students. Which is why this system is successful.
If you just give teachers a bonus, they cheat, and typically the worst teachers in the worst class rooms with kids who need education the most are the ones who cheat.
If you give just students a bonus, the teacher teaches the same and hopes the kid gets it right.
Give the teach and the student money? They both have a common goal that they recieve incentives for.
The extra money will give the teacher a reason to try harder on the chance. Teaching is, from all I've herd, a very taxing job, for which reason many teachers only put in as much energy as they think will produce results.
I'm not saying I agree with the bonus, as it could go to better uses, but it's not unreasonable.
Hoping someone gets lucky is not good public policy, I think. Teachers are underpaid, but rewarding them for luck isn't going to address that.
It sounds far more like something important-sounding with a nice round number for a politician to hawk. I don't see it generating results.
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?
Er, if it's out of their direct control, then how will paying them $3,000 extra help matters?
(And the same to Scalfin)
(...as Loren already pointed out...)
Basically your arguments seem to be: they aren't bad teachers, external conditions are beyond their control; changing these external conditions often improves student results, therefore we should pay teachers extra for...an improvement that was beyond their control.
So question two: aside from traders & bankers, do we often pay people bonuses for shit they had nothing to do with?
That's why the pay the teacher and the kids. That way everyone has motivation to succeed. Even if the kid and his family don't value education, they probably value money.
If the only paid teachers, then it would be luck of the draw and to who has a smart class and gets paid more, and the teachers with dumb classes would help kids cheat so they get paid. This actually happened if a few school districts.
The money to the kids is the leveraging device. That way regardless of the education levels of each class, the students have incentives that are directly related to the teacher that don't help the teacher.
Matt, none of that explains why we should be paying teachers bonuses for external factors beyond their control, or if improvements are in their control, why we should accept that they do a substandard job on their current salary.
If the latter, this £3,000 scheme is just a fancy name for 'a raise'.
Matt, none of that explains why we should be paying teachers bonuses for external factors beyond their control, or if improvements are in their control, why we should accept that they do a substandard job on their current salary.
If the latter, this £3,000 scheme is just a fancy name for 'a raise'.
First, you are right. The way he explained it makes you perfectly correct.
I'm not sure if I agree with 'Matts' explanation, but I do agree with your deduction: its just a fansy way to give teacher's a raise.
For students though: its a motivational technique.
I assume they are using the ladder to justify the former. If it improves educational results in the schools using the new system, then kudos.
wawkin on
Talkin to the robbery expert.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
And be honest -- how many of you, or other kids you went to school with, got cash from your parents if you brought home a good report card? Were you guys up in arms about this when you were younger?
I knew tons of kids who got money based on the grades they would bring home. This is just basically the state doing it where the parents aren't involved enough.
It should be noted that this article focused primarily on elementary and middle school, too, so all the high school discussion is kind of out of place.
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.
What about the potential of tracking good students while neglecting the rest? Don't you think this will even further the gap where a student who is "outside" the area of being a good student, it will only further his feeling of alienation, as he watches other kids get paid while he gets no reward?
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.
What about the potential of tracking good students while neglecting the rest? Don't you think this will even further the gap where a student who is "outside" the area of being a good student, it will only further his feeling of alienation, as he watches other kids get paid while he gets no reward?
It sure will. Maybe that will act as a motivator, but if it doesn't what is realy changing in that kids environment? Nothing man. Not a thing. It either helps or has no effect.
And be honest -- how many of you, or other kids you went to school with, got cash from your parents if you brought home a good report card? Were you guys up in arms about this when you were younger?
I knew tons of kids who got money based on the grades they would bring home. This is just basically the state doing it where the parents aren't involved enough.
It should be noted that this article focused primarily on elementary and middle school, too, so all the high school discussion is kind of out of place.
True enough. I didn't, but most of my peers did.
wawkin on
Talkin to the robbery expert.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
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.
What about the potential of tracking good students while neglecting the rest? Don't you think this will even further the gap where a student who is "outside" the area of being a good student, it will only further his feeling of alienation, as he watches other kids get paid while he gets no reward?
Don't you think this will even further the gap where a student who is "outside" the area of being a good student, it will only further his feeling of alienation, as he watches other kids get paid while he gets no reward?
This right here is the worst attitude to ever arise. Most people, when faced with competition, will work harder to compete. And when they do better because of this their self esteem rises. Failure is an important tool in this fashion. Self esteem is important, but it can be achieved through better means than keeping everyone in protective bubbles.
Matt, none of that explains why we should be paying teachers bonuses for external factors beyond their control, or if improvements are in their control, why we should accept that they do a substandard job on their current salary.
If the latter, this £3,000 scheme is just a fancy name for 'a raise'.
Performance based salary? Educational Commission?
Teachers have unions, and get tenure, then are hard to fire for poor performance. So they get paid regardless of thier performance. So why should they work harder if they get paid the same regardless? Everyone in this situation will react the same way. Do the minimum, get paid go home.
You can fire them and get brand new teachers, but the same result will occur. It's not the individuals who lack ability, its that they are not driven by any incentives. So we have to give them that, and if you can spend an extra 3 thousand per teacher which isnt too teribly much, and get results then so be it.
The external factors beyond teacher control are meant to be mitigated by paying the students as well. At least as I see it.
So really to answer your question of why we should pay substandard teachers for things that might be out of thier control? If it results in better education? Yes.
Don't you think this will even further the gap where a student who is "outside" the area of being a good student, it will only further his feeling of alienation, as he watches other kids get paid while he gets no reward?
This right here is the worst attitude to ever arise. Most people, when faced with competition, will work harder to compete. And when they do better because of this their self esteem rises. Failure is an important tool in this fashion. Self esteem is important, but it can be achieved through better means than keeping everyone in protective bubbles.
Careful there buddy. People around here (this forum and the USA) are rather altruistic. Competition is not a favorite buzzword. It makes sense to you, me and a few others. But ultimately, competition creates losers. And the general idea is to prevent the neccessity of anyone losing in education. I don't agree with it, but that is the general idea.
wawkin on
Talkin to the robbery expert.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
People make out like teaching students is the same as being a small businessman all the time. I think the doctor analogy is a lot more analogous than that.
I didn't get that impression from Not Sarastro. He was suggesting (as was I) that given the information presented on Schools That Are Really Bad, it's not a matter of the teacher being good or bad a lot of the time, and occasionally excelling classes are unlikely enough to make the $3,000 teacher incentive either worthless (as it will rarely be received) or largely luck-based.
As such, it doesn't serve as an incentive at all, at least, not in ways that will make a difference.
I'm in favor of raising teachers' salaries in general, though. They (generally) work really fucking hard.
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.
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?
Is an incentive based education a good idea at all?
Dude. That area has a 50% high school drop out rate.
I think it is safe to say that most of those kids know plenty of people who don't go on to college.
Which poses the questions: Was it foolish for you to paint the cash incentives as something that eroded the children's motivation to go to college? Yes.
That's a great point; you got me there.
So if the aim of this program is to keep kids interested in school, is it actually enough to keep them from giving in to the pressures that cause them to drop out already? That is, is it enough to keep them from dropping out in order to get a job or finding a way to make money on the streets? Can the income received from these tests feasibly compete with the factors that cause these drop out rates?
The kids in this article are in middle school, what I'd be interested is what kids in high school had to say about this.
And say the system was set-up in the way Loren Michael suggested, with the kids being paid on a weekly basis, what kind of funding issues would this create for the schools> Would the switch to public funding create some of the same problems we have now? Would schools in rich areas have more money to give their students?
Matt, none of that explains why we should be paying teachers bonuses for external factors beyond their control, or if improvements are in their control, why we should accept that they do a substandard job on their current salary.
If the latter, this £3,000 scheme is just a fancy name for 'a raise'.
Performance based salary? Educational Commission?
Teachers have unions, and get tenure, then are hard to fire for poor performance. So they get paid regardless of thier performance. So why should they work harder if they get paid the same regardless? Everyone in this situation will react the same way. Do the minimum, get paid go home.
You can fire them and get brand new teachers, but the same result will occur. It's not the individuals who lack ability, its that they are not driven by any incentives. So we have to give them that, and if you can spend an extra 3 thousand per teacher which isnt too teribly much, and get results then so be it.
The external factors beyond teacher control are meant to be mitigated by paying the students as well. At least as I see it.
So really to answer your question of why we should pay substandard teachers for things that might be out of thier control? If it results in better education? Yes.
The point: You described the increase or decrease of a students performance, in eduational matters, as outside the control of the teacher. Therefore, including the teacher in the incentive program seems pointless (from your described view).
wawkin on
Talkin to the robbery expert.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
So again, what are these students going to do when they don't receive money for learning?
If you receive money after mowing a lawn for 10 years, then you stop receiving money, do you still mow the lawn? The point of education is to benefit the children in the long run, and I believe that paying someone to learn will be harmful to them in the long run.
Also, what are we going to do with the students who are learning disabled? Note: Children who are learning disabled is defined as having the ability to learn a concept, but not in the same way as other children. For example, some children who are learning disabled simply cannot read very well, no matter how hard they try. They may, however, be able to listen to an audio file of the lesson and learn it just as well as someone who read it. What about these children?
Buddy Lee on
Join Penny-Arcaders in EPL Fantasy Futbol! Click to see details.
So again, what are these students going to do when they don't receive money for learning?
If you receive money after mowing a lawn for 10 years, then you stop receiving money, do you still mow the lawn? The point of education is to benefit the children in the long run, and I believe that paying someone to learn will be harmful to them in the long run.
Also, what are we going to do with the students who are learning disabled? Note: Children who are learning disabled is defined as having the ability to learn a concept, but not in the same way as other children. For example, some children who are learning disabled simply cannot read very well, no matter how hard they try. They may, however, be able to listen to an audio file of the lesson and learn it just as well as someone who read it. What about these children?
I havent seen anyone post anything about stopping pay. So what are you talking about, or rather 'when'?
We have developed methods for educating people with learning dissabilities. So, I dont see your point. The same system of incentive will apply.
wawkin on
Talkin to the robbery expert.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
So again, what are these students going to do when they don't receive money for learning?
I don't think anyone's talking about giving them huge sums of money. And by the time they're graduating I would like to think the majority of them have the brain capacity to see the benefits of continuing to learn more or obtain valuable skills as opposed to managing Bennegans.
If I was the sort of student who was motivated solely by money, and my choices were between studying really hard and maybe getting some extra pittance at the end of the week/month/year, or letting my studies slide and just getting a job with a guaranteed paycheck, I wonder which one I would go for?
Hmm, decisions...
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Last I checked elementary school was mandatory and letting those children work was illegal. To say nothing of the fact that this is a good way to get smart children not interested in a subject to actually try and learn it well.
If I was the sort of student who was motivated solely by money, and my choices were between studying really hard and maybe getting some extra pittance at the end of the week/month/year, or letting my studies slide and just getting a job with a guaranteed paycheck, I wonder which one I would go for?
Hmm, decisions...
If I was the sort of student who liked to eat, I'd try to get as much money on the side as possible. A future isn't worth malnourishment, but a bit more money isn't worth sacrificing a future, so the extra money helps the students stay in school.
Matt, none of that explains why we should be paying teachers bonuses for external factors beyond their control, or if improvements are in their control, why we should accept that they do a substandard job on their current salary.
If the latter, this £3,000 scheme is just a fancy name for 'a raise'.
Performance based salary? Educational Commission?
Teachers have unions, and get tenure, then are hard to fire for poor performance. So they get paid regardless of thier performance. So why should they work harder if they get paid the same regardless? Everyone in this situation will react the same way. Do the minimum, get paid go home.
You can fire them and get brand new teachers, but the same result will occur. It's not the individuals who lack ability, its that they are not driven by any incentives. So we have to give them that, and if you can spend an extra 3 thousand per teacher which isnt too teribly much, and get results then so be it.
The external factors beyond teacher control are meant to be mitigated by paying the students as well. At least as I see it.
So really to answer your question of why we should pay substandard teachers for things that might be out of thier control? If it results in better education? Yes.
The point: You described the increase or decrease of a students performance, in eduational matters, as outside the control of the teacher. Therefore, including the teacher in the incentive program seems pointless (from your described view).
I guess including the teacher might not make sense. I was looking at it from a purely incentive point of view. Give someone an incentive to do well, and they are more likely to do it. But then again the teacher salary increase might be needless. The teacher is just there to teach and gets paid, the students are there to learn and need an incentive to combat outside factors.
If we took away the teacher incentive would the students be less likely to do well? Maybe?!
If I was the sort of student who was motivated solely by money, and my choices were between studying really hard and maybe getting some extra pittance at the end of the week/month/year, or letting my studies slide and just getting a job with a guaranteed paycheck, I wonder which one I would go for?
Hmm, decisions...
This is assuming a willingness and capability to work. For a lot of elementary school kids, I wouldn't say that's the case. Are you saying that incentives won't work unless you can live off them, or what? Small amounts of spending cash are desirable, and it holds the possibility to motivate kids to study harder, at least.
Most kids are going to be sitting in the classroom anyway. Why wouldn't giving them tangible incentive to pay attention instead of doodling or dicking around work?
So, I've always been somewhat of a slacker and it affected me in school. Early on in my school career when I was a wee lad, I got good grades, but not great grades. My dad decided to try something and made me a deal: $10 for every A I brought home on my report card.
The next report card I got was straight As. School was something I had to do anyway, so I might as well do it well and make some easy money. For me, it was the little extra push that I needed to actually study a bit harder. When I was older and in High School and got a job that paid $15 an hour, easily guaranteeing that I'd see more than I'd ever see from that report card reward in a day, did I stop getting straight As? Nope. By that time, studying was a conditioned habit.
Also, another problem I have with your argument Jeffe, is that very few children, or people for that matter, think solely about money.
LOL@this. money runs the world bud. Everyone thinks about money constantly of thier own accord. There are few products or services that do not require thoughts related to money. The need for it is universal.
'Solely' got nothing to do with it.
wawkin on
Talkin to the robbery expert.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
Also, another problem I have with your argument Jeffe, is that very few children, or people for that matter, think solely about money.
LOL@this. money runs the world bud. Everyone thinks about money constantly of thier own accord. There are few products or services that do not require thoughts related to money. The need for it is universal.
'Solely' got nothing to do with it.
It does when the person I'm responding to is talking about a person solely motivated by money.
I never said people weren't motivated by it or that it wasn't important.
maybe kids should be taught that when you're an adult, you actually do get quite a bit of money from, uh, having excelled in education?
You know, a lot of people in the thread are espousing this correlation
but aside from the fact that it's not necessarily true (there's still a lot of legwork involved, and it can still be hit-or-miss), it's not a correlation you can "teach." You can't instill into children that, "Oh, even if it's a bloody and miserable mess, twenty years down the line there's a good chance it will all have been worth it!"
Especially not when every environmental cue they're receiving is that there's nothing good to come, whether or not they put their nose to the grindstone.
If I was the sort of student who was motivated solely by money, and my choices were between studying really hard and maybe getting some extra pittance at the end of the week/month/year, or letting my studies slide and just getting a job with a guaranteed paycheck, I wonder which one I would go for?
Hmm, decisions...
Assuming that being solely motivated by money means the kid in question turns his grades completely around and gets pretty good grades, you really think he'd decide to drop out and become a loser by societal standards again?
maybe kids should be taught that when you're an adult, you actually do get quite a bit of money from, uh, having excelled in education?
You know, a lot of people in the thread are espousing this correlation
but aside from the fact that it's not necessarily true (there's still a lot of legwork involved, and it can still be hit-or-miss), it's not a correlation you can "teach." You can't instill into children that, "Oh, even if it's a bloody and miserable mess, twenty years down the line there's a good chance it will all have been worth it!"
Especially not when every environmental cue they're receiving is that there's nothing good to come, whether or not they put their nose to the grindstone.
I don't know about that. My parents made it very clear that the only way they ended up being successful professionals was by working hard as kids, going to good colleges, and then getting graduate degrees from prestigious institutions. Taking that lesson to heart helped me out a lot, especially now that I've been trying to find a good job without a graduate degree (applying to business school now, actually).
It also showed up when I was in college. I worked my ass off to get into a top school and was rewarded by having access to vastly greater resources there than I could have at a lesser school. And I'm not just talking about facilities, I'm talking about human connections to amazing, top-notch professors and students who have been invaluable after graduation.
So as far as I can see, it hasn't really been all that hit or miss. The vast majority of slackers in HS are still living in my hometown, doing crappy jobs and not making much money (confirmed by my 5 year HS reunion). The vast majority of kids who worked their butts off and got into good schools are doing pretty amazing stuff and making good money (working for CNN, doing a Fulbright, investment banking, starting their own companies, etc etc).
You know... the more I recall my elementary school years the more i realize that I was happy with a dollar in quarters...
(regarding my earlier post, I assumed it was ludicrous to posit that all children, when given money, would immediately spend it on drugs. Some people can take anything seriously)
Teachers have unions, and get tenure, then are hard to fire for poor performance. So they get paid regardless of thier performance. So why should they work harder if they get paid the same regardless? Everyone in this situation will react the same way. Do the minimum, get paid go home.
You can fire them and get brand new teachers, but the same result will occur. It's not the individuals who lack ability, its that they are not driven by any incentives. So we have to give them that, and if you can spend an extra 3 thousand per teacher which isnt too teribly much, and get results then so be it.
Absolutely, I agree with this. Except, unless you argue that we are paying teachers too little as it is (fair enough), I don't think extra 3 thousand bonuses should be the norm, but that they should get the last $3,000 of their salary if performance improves. I'm not terribly bothered by this (after all, traders get ridiculously bloated bonuses for playing poker with other people's money, far more bothered by that), but think it is setting a bad precedent in teaching to follow similar bad examples such as trading.
Also, the main point of that argument was to point out that the 'beyond teacher control' argument was bollox - if these things are beyond their control, then they can't do anything $3,000 or not, so let's not pretend it is anything other than a raise.
The external factors beyond teacher control are meant to be mitigated by paying the students as well. At least as I see it.
That makes little to no sense. I don't believe the 'factors beyond teacher control' were limited soley to student motivation. Moreover, motivating students is actually part of the teacher's job, even if at times it may be impossible. But paying students $50 isn't going to solve gang problems, improve the school facilities, or stop their father/mother abusing them. In fact, it is liable to exacerbate some of those problems (ie where is this $50 coming from in the education budget...)
Finally, though I'm sure the US does have the money for this kind of scheme, it's funny how most of you are totally willing to jump on what would be, by any calculation, an extraordinarily expensive scheme if it worked as intended, without the faintest mention of who is paying for it.
If I was the sort of student who was motivated solely by money, and my choices were between studying really hard and maybe getting some extra pittance at the end of the week/month/year, or letting my studies slide and just getting a job with a guaranteed paycheck, I wonder which one I would go for?
Hmm, decisions...
If you'd actually been absorbing anything that you needed to learn to get any of that cash, you'd realize that education has a strong correlation with high-paying jobs.
...
I see that Shinto already said what I would like to have said. Except the "retarded" bit, that seems uncouthish, though not unwarranted.
maybe kids should be taught that when you're an adult, you actually do get quite a bit of money from, uh, having excelled in education?
You know, a lot of people in the thread are espousing this correlation
but aside from the fact that it's not necessarily true (there's still a lot of legwork involved, and it can still be hit-or-miss), it's not a correlation you can "teach." You can't instill into children that, "Oh, even if it's a bloody and miserable mess, twenty years down the line there's a good chance it will all have been worth it!"
Especially not when every environmental cue they're receiving is that there's nothing good to come, whether or not they put their nose to the grindstone.
Yeah well somewhere down the line they ought to realize how much of a bubble school is, and then life only gets shittier when you have to take care of yourself, and if you can get through college, it's appreciably less shittier.
I don't know, it's not all that hard of a message to communicate. I don't see how you couldn't make the prospect of the likelihood of having a bit of cash to spare as opposed to not generally correllates with whether or not you have a college degree. There are exceptions either way, but in general terms, for average people who aren't exactly all that academically ambitious to begin with, it should make some sort of impact among the more...survival minded of them?
Posts
So I think it would end up just rewarding the kids who do well anyway, without changing much for the others. Some marginal effects, but nothing major.
---
As far as payment, I think cash is fine. Secondary education is not always the ultimate objective. Teaching a kid to read, write, and do simple math is worthwhile on its own. Elementary school is not the place to produce scholars. It's where we produce people who are at least moderately competent on an intellectual level. If cash can help in that endeavor, then go for it.
But, you have to give incentives for both teachers and students. Which is why this system is successful.
If you just give teachers a bonus, they cheat, and typically the worst teachers in the worst class rooms with kids who need education the most are the ones who cheat.
If you give just students a bonus, the teacher teaches the same and hopes the kid gets it right.
Give the teach and the student money? They both have a common goal that they recieve incentives for.
Win.
Hoping someone gets lucky is not good public policy, I think. Teachers are underpaid, but rewarding them for luck isn't going to address that.
It sounds far more like something important-sounding with a nice round number for a politician to hawk. I don't see it generating results.
I see grade payments as getting results.
Er, if it's out of their direct control, then how will paying them $3,000 extra help matters?
(And the same to Scalfin)
(...as Loren already pointed out...)
Basically your arguments seem to be: they aren't bad teachers, external conditions are beyond their control; changing these external conditions often improves student results, therefore we should pay teachers extra for...an improvement that was beyond their control.
So question two: aside from traders & bankers, do we often pay people bonuses for shit they had nothing to do with?
If the only paid teachers, then it would be luck of the draw and to who has a smart class and gets paid more, and the teachers with dumb classes would help kids cheat so they get paid. This actually happened if a few school districts.
The money to the kids is the leveraging device. That way regardless of the education levels of each class, the students have incentives that are directly related to the teacher that don't help the teacher.
im not sure if i made sense.
If the latter, this £3,000 scheme is just a fancy name for 'a raise'.
First, you are right. The way he explained it makes you perfectly correct.
I'm not sure if I agree with 'Matts' explanation, but I do agree with your deduction: its just a fansy way to give teacher's a raise.
For students though: its a motivational technique.
I assume they are using the ladder to justify the former. If it improves educational results in the schools using the new system, then kudos.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
I knew tons of kids who got money based on the grades they would bring home. This is just basically the state doing it where the parents aren't involved enough.
It should be noted that this article focused primarily on elementary and middle school, too, so all the high school discussion is kind of out of place.
It sure will. Maybe that will act as a motivator, but if it doesn't what is realy changing in that kids environment? Nothing man. Not a thing. It either helps or has no effect.
True enough. I didn't, but most of my peers did.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
I don't know. Let's try it out and see.
Performance based salary? Educational Commission?
Teachers have unions, and get tenure, then are hard to fire for poor performance. So they get paid regardless of thier performance. So why should they work harder if they get paid the same regardless? Everyone in this situation will react the same way. Do the minimum, get paid go home.
You can fire them and get brand new teachers, but the same result will occur. It's not the individuals who lack ability, its that they are not driven by any incentives. So we have to give them that, and if you can spend an extra 3 thousand per teacher which isnt too teribly much, and get results then so be it.
The external factors beyond teacher control are meant to be mitigated by paying the students as well. At least as I see it.
So really to answer your question of why we should pay substandard teachers for things that might be out of thier control? If it results in better education? Yes.
Careful there buddy. People around here (this forum and the USA) are rather altruistic. Competition is not a favorite buzzword. It makes sense to you, me and a few others. But ultimately, competition creates losers. And the general idea is to prevent the neccessity of anyone losing in education. I don't agree with it, but that is the general idea.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
I didn't get that impression from Not Sarastro. He was suggesting (as was I) that given the information presented on Schools That Are Really Bad, it's not a matter of the teacher being good or bad a lot of the time, and occasionally excelling classes are unlikely enough to make the $3,000 teacher incentive either worthless (as it will rarely be received) or largely luck-based.
As such, it doesn't serve as an incentive at all, at least, not in ways that will make a difference.
I'm in favor of raising teachers' salaries in general, though. They (generally) work really fucking hard.
That's a great point; you got me there.
So if the aim of this program is to keep kids interested in school, is it actually enough to keep them from giving in to the pressures that cause them to drop out already? That is, is it enough to keep them from dropping out in order to get a job or finding a way to make money on the streets? Can the income received from these tests feasibly compete with the factors that cause these drop out rates?
The kids in this article are in middle school, what I'd be interested is what kids in high school had to say about this.
And say the system was set-up in the way Loren Michael suggested, with the kids being paid on a weekly basis, what kind of funding issues would this create for the schools> Would the switch to public funding create some of the same problems we have now? Would schools in rich areas have more money to give their students?
The point: You described the increase or decrease of a students performance, in eduational matters, as outside the control of the teacher. Therefore, including the teacher in the incentive program seems pointless (from your described view).
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
If you receive money after mowing a lawn for 10 years, then you stop receiving money, do you still mow the lawn? The point of education is to benefit the children in the long run, and I believe that paying someone to learn will be harmful to them in the long run.
Also, what are we going to do with the students who are learning disabled? Note: Children who are learning disabled is defined as having the ability to learn a concept, but not in the same way as other children. For example, some children who are learning disabled simply cannot read very well, no matter how hard they try. They may, however, be able to listen to an audio file of the lesson and learn it just as well as someone who read it. What about these children?
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
I havent seen anyone post anything about stopping pay. So what are you talking about, or rather 'when'?
We have developed methods for educating people with learning dissabilities. So, I dont see your point. The same system of incentive will apply.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
Hmm, decisions...
If I was the sort of student who liked to eat, I'd try to get as much money on the side as possible. A future isn't worth malnourishment, but a bit more money isn't worth sacrificing a future, so the extra money helps the students stay in school.
I guess including the teacher might not make sense. I was looking at it from a purely incentive point of view. Give someone an incentive to do well, and they are more likely to do it. But then again the teacher salary increase might be needless. The teacher is just there to teach and gets paid, the students are there to learn and need an incentive to combat outside factors.
If we took away the teacher incentive would the students be less likely to do well? Maybe?!
This is assuming a willingness and capability to work. For a lot of elementary school kids, I wouldn't say that's the case. Are you saying that incentives won't work unless you can live off them, or what? Small amounts of spending cash are desirable, and it holds the possibility to motivate kids to study harder, at least.
Most kids are going to be sitting in the classroom anyway. Why wouldn't giving them tangible incentive to pay attention instead of doodling or dicking around work?
The next report card I got was straight As. School was something I had to do anyway, so I might as well do it well and make some easy money. For me, it was the little extra push that I needed to actually study a bit harder. When I was older and in High School and got a job that paid $15 an hour, easily guaranteeing that I'd see more than I'd ever see from that report card reward in a day, did I stop getting straight As? Nope. By that time, studying was a conditioned habit.
</anecdote>
LOL@this. money runs the world bud. Everyone thinks about money constantly of thier own accord. There are few products or services that do not require thoughts related to money. The need for it is universal.
'Solely' got nothing to do with it.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
I never said people weren't motivated by it or that it wasn't important.
but aside from the fact that it's not necessarily true (there's still a lot of legwork involved, and it can still be hit-or-miss), it's not a correlation you can "teach." You can't instill into children that, "Oh, even if it's a bloody and miserable mess, twenty years down the line there's a good chance it will all have been worth it!"
Especially not when every environmental cue they're receiving is that there's nothing good to come, whether or not they put their nose to the grindstone.
Assuming that being solely motivated by money means the kid in question turns his grades completely around and gets pretty good grades, you really think he'd decide to drop out and become a loser by societal standards again?
I can't really see kids as being that driven.
On the black screen
I don't know about that. My parents made it very clear that the only way they ended up being successful professionals was by working hard as kids, going to good colleges, and then getting graduate degrees from prestigious institutions. Taking that lesson to heart helped me out a lot, especially now that I've been trying to find a good job without a graduate degree (applying to business school now, actually).
It also showed up when I was in college. I worked my ass off to get into a top school and was rewarded by having access to vastly greater resources there than I could have at a lesser school. And I'm not just talking about facilities, I'm talking about human connections to amazing, top-notch professors and students who have been invaluable after graduation.
So as far as I can see, it hasn't really been all that hit or miss. The vast majority of slackers in HS are still living in my hometown, doing crappy jobs and not making much money (confirmed by my 5 year HS reunion). The vast majority of kids who worked their butts off and got into good schools are doing pretty amazing stuff and making good money (working for CNN, doing a Fulbright, investment banking, starting their own companies, etc etc).
(regarding my earlier post, I assumed it was ludicrous to posit that all children, when given money, would immediately spend it on drugs. Some people can take anything seriously)
Absolutely, I agree with this. Except, unless you argue that we are paying teachers too little as it is (fair enough), I don't think extra 3 thousand bonuses should be the norm, but that they should get the last $3,000 of their salary if performance improves. I'm not terribly bothered by this (after all, traders get ridiculously bloated bonuses for playing poker with other people's money, far more bothered by that), but think it is setting a bad precedent in teaching to follow similar bad examples such as trading.
Also, the main point of that argument was to point out that the 'beyond teacher control' argument was bollox - if these things are beyond their control, then they can't do anything $3,000 or not, so let's not pretend it is anything other than a raise.
That makes little to no sense. I don't believe the 'factors beyond teacher control' were limited soley to student motivation. Moreover, motivating students is actually part of the teacher's job, even if at times it may be impossible. But paying students $50 isn't going to solve gang problems, improve the school facilities, or stop their father/mother abusing them. In fact, it is liable to exacerbate some of those problems (ie where is this $50 coming from in the education budget...)
Finally, though I'm sure the US does have the money for this kind of scheme, it's funny how most of you are totally willing to jump on what would be, by any calculation, an extraordinarily expensive scheme if it worked as intended, without the faintest mention of who is paying for it.
If you'd actually been absorbing anything that you needed to learn to get any of that cash, you'd realize that education has a strong correlation with high-paying jobs.
...
I see that Shinto already said what I would like to have said. Except the "retarded" bit, that seems uncouthish, though not unwarranted.
Yeah well somewhere down the line they ought to realize how much of a bubble school is, and then life only gets shittier when you have to take care of yourself, and if you can get through college, it's appreciably less shittier.
I don't know, it's not all that hard of a message to communicate. I don't see how you couldn't make the prospect of the likelihood of having a bit of cash to spare as opposed to not generally correllates with whether or not you have a college degree. There are exceptions either way, but in general terms, for average people who aren't exactly all that academically ambitious to begin with, it should make some sort of impact among the more...survival minded of them?