Slashdot Mirror
Kids Score 40 Percent Higher When They Get Paid For Grades
A large number of schools participating in a pay-for-grades program have seen test scores in reading and math go up by almost 40 percentage points. The Sparks program will pay seventh-graders up to $500 and fourth-graders as much as $250 for good performance on 10 assessment tests. About two-thirds of the 59 schools in the program improved their scores by margins above the citywide average. "It's an ego booster in terms of self-worth. When they get the checks, there's that competitiveness -- 'Oh, I'm going to get more money than you next time' -- so it's something that excites them," said Rose Marie Mills, principal at MS 343 in Mott Haven. Critics, who are unaware that most college students don't become liberal arts majors, argue that paying kids corrupts the notion of learning for education's sake alone.
This is dangerous: studies have shown that when you give extrinsic motivation for something, the intrinsic motivation tends to die away.
The paper I'm thinking of first observed that children in a class had lots of fun painting for no reason. Then, they started to extrinsically reward the children for painting, and the children started to paint a lot more. Then the rewards stopped, and so did the painting.
As the link points out, there is some debate about the truth of what I just said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect
I don't know anyone who learns for the sakes of education.
I do
you forgot to add #4:
In the USA public education is now just used as a tool for political indoctrination. With extremists at both ends vying to brainwash children.
"You have to get to the children when they are young and impressionable."
and #5
#5: Schools have now been regulated to substitute parents for a generation of deliquents who are incapable of parenting. Those children just get worse until they end up in high school with no sense of personal responsibility as their parents showed none.
Now teachers are being asked to change diapers for kids who's dead beat parents never bothered to teach how to use a toilet.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Most often "celebrity" refers either to a network tv personality (who will generally have some sort of higher education, in broadcasting if nothing else) or an actor/actress. Successful actors and actresses study a great deal to learn their art, most have studied ballet, dance, singing, and countless other skills they can add to their resume. Not to mention the numerous topics that must be studied for the individual roles, martial arts, fencing, foreign languages, rock climbing, period history and character history.
Sure there is an occasional fluke, but they normally don't last.
I agree. Why is it that some of stupidest, most close-minded comments are coming from those that are promoting "education", or "intrinsic learning", whatever the hell that is. How exactly is getting paid "extrinsic", but being forced to do something without pay "intrinsic"?
Where'd you get the idea that my only sense of reward involves money? A single post does not the man make.
Would it be fair if I wrote,
"It's unfortunate that you can only jump to conclusions and make off the cuff character assassinations of complete strangers. But hey, I guess that's as American as apple pie! This country is so fucked."
??
The reward for the kid comes when they're twenty plus years old, and they look back and realize that their old man incentivized their learning. Although at the time they were only focused on the reward, by having to perform well to earn the reward, they managed to pick up the study skills and other abilities that have carried them into college, and given them a good foundation for the rest of their life.
Having been both home-schooled and public-schooled for various parts of my education (I attended high school and elementary school, but not middle school), I can say that homeschooling is as good as the student. The "socializing" argument is easily reversed: for the outcasts (like my brother, who was teased to the point of tears on a daily basis because of his writing disability), or for those who have better things to do (I wanted to study my computer science. Learning the same elementary algebra 3 years in a row at a public elementary school just doesn't help that task along), homeschooling is a reprieve from the "socializing" that is doing a lot more harm than good.
I believe that homeschooling versus public schooling versus any other option that might be available needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Treating children as if they all learn in the same way, at the same pace, or with their age group just doesn't work. Homeschooling isn't for everyone. Neither are public schools. Both can be equally damaging to someone who isn't suited to the environment. And the "lack of socializing" is becoming less and less of an issue as the internet becomes more prevalent (and, there are plenty of places to go other than a school to interact with your peers. But your peers aren't always those who share your age -- as in my brother's case, or TFA's case, where the age group taunts the kid or is so far behind the kid that there's no comparison).
My $0.02. Probably biased :)
Someone asked me for a study on this point, so I'll post it here for inquiring minds. I only recall one study off the top of my head, though I know others are out there. You may know this already, but there are several economic journals dedicated to housing, labor, and poverty - they'd be a good start if you wanted to read more.
The article is a bit dated - from 2004 - my apologies on that, I haven't kept up with more current research, if any exists, on this topic. Without further ado, the article is entitled "Public Housing, Housing Vouchers, and Student Achievement: Evidence from Public Housing Demolitions in Chicago" and the primary author is Brian Jacob.
Basically, the city of Chicago demolished some slummy towers and the residents moved to "substantially better neighborhoods" with vouchers. The study follows the educational achievement of the children of those who stayed in public housing (non-demolished towers) as well as the children of those who moved. The study finds performance doesn't differ meaningfully between the two groups in educational attainment or poverty.
The study does have some flaws - for example, the study was big, but looked only at those forced to relocate, taking volunteers might produce better results - though that may just re-enforce the finding that whatever makes most of these kids perform poorly transfers with their family. Anyhow, I think the study is statistically meaningful and the methodology is reasonably sound.
Additionally, re-reading my comment here, I believe I overstated the results - the students here weren't moved to wealthy areas. I'm sure I read a study on that, and I recall that the transplants reduced their peers performance but did no better themselves, but I won't look that up, since it had smaller control & test groups, plus this study is pretty close. Anyhow, here residents were moved to significantly better areas, but not wealthy areas.
JSTOR Page & PDF.