- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,141
- Reaction score
- 58,870
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
i think its a bad idea, for two reason, first one being, if they'd done that when i was at school, i'd have ended up owing money, and second, i think it could lead to various problems in later life, such as them becoming more demanding for pay rises etc. in later life, which could lead to unemployment for some, and perhaps bring about a "what's in it for me" sort of mentality, which could not onlyu make 'em lazy, but leave altruism laying in the dust.
It's a bad idea, an education should be treasured, and made the most of. Not something that kids do only to make a quick buck.
I just read an interesting article on Time about paying kids for good grades or other performance
Pay for Grades: Should Parents Bribe Kids in School? - TIME
This leads me think, if we are ever going to improve our education system, we are probably going to have to scientifically experiment on populations and find out what actually works instead of relying on things like "common sense", politics, or other unreliable drivers.
However, I wonder if doing this is unethical.
What is your opinion, good idea or bad idea?
IMO some kids are too near sighted. Many do not see the full future value of a good education when they are so young. Especially when the rewards of a good education aren't realized until later in life.
Just look at exercise. Because some don't see an immediate result, it's hard to stay motivated.
I wouldn't be against this idea, since money can really motivate people to do better... but I'd rather see students get some kind of prize or privilege instead of money. Maybe earn the right to take a Friday off? Sometimes grades alone aren't a good enough reward.
You'd may be surprised but parents are the absolute number 1 reason of why a child does well in school.
Parents have to believe that education is a worthwhile endeavor and children take their cues from the parent.
Oh I agree. But clearly many parents are failing their kids.
I agree, I'm not sure that monetary rewards will have a lasting impact that we desire.
I think initially it would work but over the long run, the results would taper off.
i think its a bad idea, for two reason, first one being, if they'd done that when i was at school, i'd have ended up owing money, and second, i think it could lead to various problems in later life, such as them becoming more demanding for pay rises etc. in later life, which could lead to unemployment for some, and perhaps bring about a "what's in it for me" sort of mentality, which could not onlyu make 'em lazy, but leave altruism laying in the dust.
It's a bad idea, an education should be treasured, and made the most of. Not something that kids do only to make a quick buck.
I'd say there is no one answer. Each child is different. If you are trying to push a kid w/ good grades who tries a little but could try more, perhaps this is the right motivation... so long as you believe they already understand the importance of getting good grades. But for a child who really just doesn't care, if you offer them money, then getting that money will be their only motivation for getting better grades - which shouldn't be the true driving force. It should just be a reward for succeeding with a more 'true' driving force: Their future.
Bad Idea/Rootabega.
You can teach children to want to enjoy learning, you don't need to pay them.
Using money as an incentive is just laziness.
This time, Fryer wanted to get a random sample of city schools to participate. Which is not as easy as it sounds. At some schools, the principal and teachers opened their arms wide and said, "Sure. We're struggling here. We'll try anything." At others, Fryer had to spend hours pleading with staff who felt kids should learn for the love of learning — not for the cash. "To this day, I can't tell you what will predict one or the other," he says. "I could walk into a completely failing school, with crack vials on the ground outside, and say, 'Hey, I went to a school like this, and I want to help.' And people would just browbeat me about 'the love of learning,' and I would be like, 'But I just stepped on crack vials out there! There are fights in the hallways! We're beyond that.'
In the city where Fryer expected the most success, the experiment had no effect at all — "as zero as zero gets," as he puts it. In two other cities, the results were promising but in totally different ways. In the last city, something remarkable happened. Kids who got paid all year under a very elegant scheme performed significantly better on their standardized reading tests at the end of the year. Statistically speaking, it was as if those kids had spent three extra months in school, compared with their peers who did not get paid.
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.
So what happens if we pay kids to do tasks they know how to do? In Dallas, paying kids to read books — something almost all of them can do — made a big difference. In fact, the experiment had as big or bigger an effect on learning as many other reforms that have been tested, like lowering class size or enrolling kids in Head Start early-education programs (both of which cost thousands of dollars more per student). And the experiment also boosted kids' grades. "If you pay a kid to read books, their grades go up higher than if you actually pay a kid for grades, like we did in Chicago," Fryer says. "Isn't that cool?"
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."
I think this following quote really speaks bounds - it's not for a lack of WANTING to do better (for students and teachers) but HOW do you improve when all you DO know how to do is failing:?
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. Sometimes that's true. But a lot of the time, people are just flying blind. John List, an economist at the University of Chicago, has noticed the disconnect in his own education experiments. He explains the problem to me this way: "I could ask you to solve a third-order linear partial differential equation," he says. "A what?" I ask. "A third-order linear partial differential equation," he says. "I could offer you a million dollars to solve it. And you can't do it." (He's right. I can't.) For some kids, doing better on a geometry test is like solving a third-order linear partial differential equation, no matter the incentive.
Over the years, KIPP leaders, who now run 82 schools nationwide, have learned a lot about which rewards work and which do not. They have found that speed matters, for example. Recognition, like punishment, works best if it happens quickly. So KIPP schools pay their kids every week. (Interestingly, the two places Fryer's experiment worked best were the ones where kids got feedback fast — through biweekly paychecks in Washington and through passing computerized quizzes in Dallas.)
Parents began using the paychecks as progress reports, contacting teachers to find out why their kids' checks had gone up or down.
We get money, raises, bonuses, and time off based off of the quality of our work at jobs. I think paying / rewarding kids to do well in school would more closely simulate what the real world is like. Like I said, grades alone aren't a good enough motivator for some.
Did any of you read the entire article? It appears that "no" is the answer. If you had done so then you would fully understand just *what* was done and *what* the findings were.
The experiment he did wasn't just "giving students $20.00 per A, $10.00 per B" - it was giving a variety of schools different methods of "earning" money - some schools were given money based on attendance, others based on the books that they read throughout the year. Other were paid for behavior, some were paid for grades and others were paid or a variety of these things. Yet again other students as in KIPP (page 3/4) weren't paid with money at all - but with incentives (pencils, erasers, neato things).
This is how some of you are responding - note the ridiculous "but they should WANT to learn for the love of learning" when it's obviously NOT working out for any of these students:
Here are some snippets of his findings:
Here, I feel, are a few key points in why this worked/didn't work:
This is also very important:
And of the utmost importance is parental involvement and even pride - these parents, here, were SO PROUD of their children for doing WELL in school and that likely had far reaching positive effects throughout the children's lives, not just at school:
Now - based on actually reading it, I think it would have positive while in effect - but negative after it ends, except the "pay to read" which was proven to improve a student's overall school-savvy even after the incentives are taken away.
One bad thing that they didn't mention at all - and I know is an absolute matter of fact - is that some parents would be just as dependent on their child's incentives as much as their hard earned paycheck. How many students, do you think, had to give part or all of it to their parents for their parents to spend freely? I would consider that a resoundingly negative and it would take away from anything good that the students would gain for the program.
I think it also would teach a few things such as financial management, budgeting, and the value of hard work = a better living.
Finally, the last bad thing is: it costs money - just like all other programs (though direct incentives TO the students costs LESS than Head Start or the process of thinning the # of students on a classroom) . . . and when things cost money they always run the risk of becoming too much to continue to pay for.
That being said - I think his payments of $200.00 and so on was ridiculously high - I think they could have done just as well giving far less, making it even more of a savings than a HeadStart or other program.
My response is still the same, parents are the number 1 motivator for progress in the education of children.
What about all the kids who make good grades, while receiving no money or school granted rewards?
It's another way to excuse the poor performance of a parent.
It's the same with school, but instead of getting money immediately, you eventually make more money in the long run. Do well in school, get into a good college, do well in college get a better job.
Also, what school program do you want to cut funds from to provide the money to put this incentive program in place?
IMO some kids are too near sighted. Many do not see the full future value of a good education when they are so young. Especially when the rewards of a good education aren't realized until later in life.
Just look at exercise. Because some don't see an immediate result, it's hard to stay motivated.
I wouldn't be against this idea, since money can really motivate people to do better... but I'd rather see students get some kind of prize or privilege instead of money. Maybe earn the right to take a Friday off? Sometimes grades alone aren't a good enough reward.
I absolutely agree with you, there. . . absolutely.
it still doesn't undercut the importance of parental involvement. . . and, in fact, I think it supports it - note how the parents were proud and excited, calling to see where and why the student's had an up/down paycheck?
If parents were involved like this WITHOUT their children earning incentives we wouldn't be having these issues at all . . . but, I think it's safe to presume that these parents were, also, raised in the same type of school system - if they got involved but STAYED involved after the program ended - then I think ti woudl still continue to have a positive effect.
How many parents stopped caring? Stopped being concerned and proud after that paycheck stopped coming in? I think that's a more telling issue . . . and rather sad. . . because you know that some of those parents wouldn't have given a damn otherwise.
I'll direct you to my previous post...
Recognition, like punishment, works best if it happens quickly. So KIPP schools pay their kids every week. (Interestingly, the two places Fryer's experiment worked best were the ones where kids got feedback fast — through biweekly paychecks in Washington and through passing computerized quizzes in Dallas.)
Many parents use schools as a glorified day care service, they want their children to do good in school but they aren't actually involved, leaving most of that to the school/teacher itself.
In the end though, children emulate their parents to a large degree.
I think it furthers the concept of immediate gratification, instead of delayed gratification.
Which has been a scourge on this nation for a long time.
I'd like to see numbers after it ended as well.
Yep - how would they do in 2 years, 4 . . . post graduation - did they go to college? I think the 'aftereffects' will be checked in on by Fryer, at least I'd hope so - otherwise - his efforts weren't even geared towards really finding out about things.
Reward based learning is good in general but the realistic rewards should be explained as being realized later in life.
I think that eventually the effects will taper off and those who would have succeeded anyway will continue to do so, while the others will fall by the wayside.
I agree with this, as well. But, as the article discusses, how do you get someone to realize a benefit or learn how to change when they, their teachers and their parents have no idea how to go about doing it - even if they really wanted to? I imagine it's not easy.
A more "realistic" approach would be to set up a fund for students - give them incentives (but not as much $ overall - the amount that was involved in this was ridiculous) and then add to it throughout their years in school - with it being given to the student upon graduation from highschool. . . . or with it simply being given as money for college books and so on (in a controlled way) - without it changing hands and being "my money" would they care quite so much?
I think ti would be interesting to know, but not worht the trouble to find out.
That sounds like a better alternative, I however hate the idea of the state doing more in education.
It's my natural reaction.
The best way to instill a love of learning, is to do it early in life.
As say this because this is what I've done with my son.
He enjoys learning for the sake of learning more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?