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.
The idea that offering real rewards for achievement would make a difference is something that should have been obvious to anyone. This environment of PC-Everybody-Gets-A-Trophy has really screwed people up quite badly. I will be very glad when the whole PC mentality gets scrapped.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
"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." I don't know anyone who learns for the sakes of education. I don't think the 40% of kids who did better would have done so just to learn either. Money is motivation. Learning just for the hell of it is not. I wish they did this when I was in school. I got really poor grades in classes that I did no care about. I would have done much better if they paid me to learn the things that I found (and still are) useless.
It's not terribly surprising. A big problem with kids (high-school included) is that they don't understand the value of an education. If you pay them then their short-sighted nature is much more likely to place a value on it.
39.6 percentage points higher than last year, when the kids were in third grade.
Does this mean that kids are 39.6% smarter than we thought they were? They just needed a reason to show it?
To people under the age of ten a six month reward cycle is a long term thing.
Hell for most college students, six months is long term.
You mad
This is the society we have built. Consumerism, greed, status seeking etc.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I know, it's a joke, but you'll probably be disappointed. Everyone you'll be competing with has a degree, the subject of the degree and the magnitude are now the dominate forces (even when ridiculous). In some areas right now they argue you need a PhD to do silicon verification, when in fact I think you probably don't need any degree, at all to do what the job ACTUALLY requires. It's just a matter of having a huge number of equally qualified applicants after the same job.
The problem with this, for all of you who have jobs, is not about some wishy washy bullshit about "the joy of learning", it's about manipulating metrics for maximum return. It's not about how much you learned or how well you can apply your knowledge, but how to appear best on paper to get the paycheck. When the rubber meets the road, are you any more qualified to do what you say you can do? We've all known people who groomed that 4.0 GPA (or close to it), who didn't amount to anything or who got washed ashore when they jumped in the ocean.
To be fair, it is a very applicable life skill to large corporation life, and we all have to do it from time to time. But if you look around your organizations and note the flaws, defects and absolutely mind-bogglingly braindead behavior that somehow persist...behind each one of those is usually some bogus metric that says "we're great!". The road to hell is paved with broken metrics.
To the present day businessman, nothing else matters but making money today. Thus any short term manipulation that demonstrably shows profit, is a good behavior. To almost any other profession, including responsible businessmen, you have to be sustainable through at least your career, or however long it takes to return what you owe, ride out tough times, and guarantee your future. Teaching kids how to act in their short term best interests exclusively is not at all the right way to go.
I wonder if this would help keep kids on the books and off the pipe or off the corner selling dope... I mean if you could earn $500 for getting a good grade then it might not be so desirable for the kids to seek out gangs and drugs as a source of income... The situation is much more complicated, but it does eliminate some of the argument from the inner city kids who state that studying ain't gonna put food on the table. I know, many people are yelling "That is the parents job", but that is not reality for an inner-city kid with 4 siblings and 1 parent who is addicted to booze and/or drugs and spends any state/fed assistance on their habit....
OK, not to rain on this parade, but....isn't our educational system pretty much predicated on cramming as much info into your head only to have you barf it back out on a test, never to use it again without looking it up?
No one seems to be asking the deeper questions:
Why do we have to pay kids to learn/study?
What are the specific flaws in the system?
What are we testing for?
What do we want to test for?
Are the testing methods adequate to the task?
Polly want a cracker?
I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
Rich kids that go to public school already know what this is all about.
When one is artificially paid for a commodity that is normally without value, the acquisition of that commodity for sale is just good business.
In other words I get paid 10 bucks for an A, I well pay you 5 bucks to get it for me, and make a tidy sum, or "buy your classwork from your poor student friends for better grades".
Oh well at least they are learning something! America's future at work!
It's a poor excuse for a study. The underlying issues in (USA) public education today are:
#1 - We don't stratify. In other words, we uniformly put the slowest idiots in with everyone else, rather than putting the brightest in one class and on down the line.
#2 - classes move at the pace of the slowest idiot. The dumb shits hold up class, the mediocre kids learn nothing as well, and the smart kids get so bored (waiting for socially-promoted 8th-grade retards to learn stuff they already mastered in 2nd grade) that they start acting up.
#3 - real standardized testing - you know, anything that might require the kids to have learned something and prove it - has vanished. Between that and social promotion, there is no expectation on the kids to achieve anything, despite clear and repeated case studies and larger-scale studies proving that holding kids to high expectations works. But since standardized testing started to mirror social problems - read: certain ethnic groups (black, illegal immigrant, etc) with near-zero family structure and a subculture that sees intelligence as race treason, were showing very poorly in the standardized tests - more and more of the tests have either been dumbed down to the point of uselessness, or have simply been done away with entirely.
Critics, who are unaware that most college students don't become liberal arts majors,
If you're going to offer the kids money, that's fine. One motivator works as well as another - when I was a kid, for example, a bunch of local restaurants chipped in and gave free meal coupons to any kid who made the honor roll.
First, though, you have to fix your metrics. The fact that they "doubled" achievement on the tests means little when the skills indicated by a "passing" grade on the newly-rebuilt "test" would, 20 years ago, have failed 2-3 grades lower.
The problem is, delaying gratification is hard, so it takes a huge delayed payout to motivate people. It may be cheaper overall to "front" people the money as an incentive sooner.
I see this occuring a couple places in society:
First, pensions in govt. and military jobs. They do encourage people to sign on, but I'll bet you could achieve the same incentive with a smaller, shorter-term payout that wouldn't put society on the hook for vast sums later on.
Second, doctor pay. I believe healthcare in the US would be more economical if we provided a smoother road for more people to become doctors, by paying a salary in medical school and as an intern, and making the hours better. This would drive down doctor pay, which we badly need to do.
This will put even more pressure on teachers to teach to the tests. Especially in low-income areas (where these trials are being done), teachers want their students to get what they're worth.
Kids aren't "getting smarter" (by the way, what does "smart" entail?) They're learning to play the game that is the educational system.
Also, if the sponsoring organizations can afford to pay each kid $250-500, where the heck are they getting those funds, and why aren't they giving it to inner-city schools in the first place?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
They would tell me that it was expected of me to get good grades, and I didn't deserve a reward for doing what I was supposed to be doing anyways.
This still seems wrong to me. I didn't tell my kids they were expected to get good grades. I told them that KNOWLEDGE WAS VALUABLE, gave them lots of evidence that this is the case, and let them figure out the rest themselves. Although now they are in high school they know that grades have taken on a new significance because they are used as inputs to the university entrance process, they've internalized the value system that it isn't the grades that are important, it's the knowledge, the skills, the breadth of mind.
Paying for grades is a logical outcome for a society that values neither education nor knowledge, but is interested in presenting itself as a meritocratic plutocracy. Grades are valued because they will get you into "good" schools, which are not the ones that teach the most but which generate the social connections and job opportunities to put you on the road to financial success. The value of eduction never enters into the equation.
Societies get what they reward. Teaching kids that the only thing worth pursing is money results in a society where the only way to get kids to do anything is to pay them. That's a bad thing.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
In the U.S. good education does not equal higher pay. Maybe it did at one time, but certainly it is no longer true.
I would argue that the getting a degree from the right combination of institutions is the gateway to higher pay. Two examples to prove my point.
4.0 from public schools ==> transfer into 2nd tier State University==>Enter workforce with 3.8 GPA and some lesser-known interships. This combination is not likely to end in higher pay. Rather, the student will probably make average wages in the first 5 years. What she does from there is up to her, but there are meaningful limits to the probability she would end up the most rewarded.
4.0 from private school attended by elites ==> transfer into 1st tier University==>Enter workforce with 3.8 GPA and some well-known interships. This combination is most likely to end in higher pay because they are most likely to be hired by companies that pay more in the first 5 years.
More importantly the 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' dream so often told in the U.S. has vanished due to the enormous costs of attempting the latter. This is part of the enormous class disparities that have grown in the last 20 years.
So, pay your kid to earn good grades at the end of each year. It's very far into **their** sense of the future.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Fully agreed, but until adults change the world so that it's not all about being paid, it's a bit unfair to teach them anything else.
It's interesting how adults want to raise kids with ideal world views but won't do squat to make the world fit the view or even spend a few moments considering how (and if) it might be accomplished.
If you're going to offer the kids money, that's fine.
No, it's not fine, it will have terrible long-term effects. This is called behavioral/operant conditioning, which, in the case of children, will become deeply entrenched into the personality that they will develop as they mature.
Don't confuse this with parents who give their children extra allowance if they get good grades. When the reinforcement comes from the same entity which is providing the challenge (in this case, the schools), it becomes a far more mechanical, "pavlovian" pattern. I seriously hope that some psychologists are monitoring this program.
This isn't just a matter of culture (as others mention on this thread), this could have long-term effects that are completely unpredictable.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Who said anything about learning? This is for grades. I suspect there are some underpaid teachers willing to accept kickbacks for adjusting a few grades.
It was not a 40% improvement in individual scores. The article states that in some schools it was a 40% improvement in the number of kids meeting some exam standard. What the prior or new scores and what the standard is was not given. Paying may help but I doubt by 40%.
On the subject of delayed gratification, it is even more difficult for children who have not been alive very long. Think of it this way. To a six year old who has been alive for 72 months, a 8 month school "year" is one tenth of their entire life. That is a LONG time. The equivalent time to a 30 year old is 36 months... or 3 years. Imagine telling a 30 year old that they are going to have to spend three years doing something before they get a reward. How would they react to it?
When I was growing up there were kids in my school who got paid for grades. I brought up the idea to my parents and they wanted nothing to do with it. On the other hand I had a pretty big allowance. The result is that I learned that money should come for free, and the idea of being financially rewarded for working is outrageous. I can assure you that when I have children, their allowance will be tied to their grades, and I will be there providing them the resources that they need to get good grades. When the report card shows up, they will have the opportunity to earn "a good amount" of money for their age.
As far as I'm concerned, paying kids for grades delivers the message... "If you work hard, you will be rewarded." School is the equivalent of work for kids. It gets them ready to go into the working world. It gives them an environment to develop the habits and abilities that they will need to become productive members of society. I don't have any problem rewarding them for progressing along the path to becoming a productive member of society.
If a school pays kids for good grades, wouldn't they naturally transition to expecting to get a raise at work for good performance ?
:)
Whereas with parents paying for good grades would either leave kids feeling like they've gone as far as they can when their parents die, or depending on the government for being rewarded when they do good at work.
Could you explain the problem to me please ?
I really don't want to read some article you've dug up on the Internet either, I actually want to read the explanation in your own words, as you understand it.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
WTF?
How is this worse than kids not learning in the first place?
Most kids see no value in education because they're kids.
Paying them, not only prepares them for life, it stresses the value of hard work and provides real results for that work.
Kids learn both their curriculum and that working hard provides tangible returns.
They're using their grammar skills there.
As well as some underpaid parents willing to cheat with/for their kids...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
"English Lit" is only half the equation. I think that for college to be a "lazy paradise" you need:
"English Lit" + "Easy source of income that doesn't mind funding your slacking ass"
As an engineering major, I could run off and co-op making 5-6x minimum wage. How people put themselves through college flipping burgers is beyond me... Especially if you're in one of those demographics that's discriminated against (or completely excluded) at scholarship time. May the gods bless the people doing that with one hand while supporting a family/kids with the other.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You shouldn't get good grades to make your parents happy. I'm pragmatic, you should study and learn as much as you can when you're a kid because it makes life a lot easier later. Trying to "catch-up" in your last year of high school because you slacked off for the last 5 years is incredibly difficult. If you pay-as-you go, put in a little work every day, it turns out to be easier than a last minute scramble.
Also being an undereducated adult is very frustrating. Do you need everything you learn in school? No. But the issue is, you don't necessarily know ahead of time what you need and what you don't. It depends on the situation you find yourself in 10 years down the road.
Of course I didn't figure that out until it was almost too late, and many kids don't get it. Teenagers tend to not believe adults when we tell them that working hard and doing good in school is for their own benefit. Probably because adults lie to children all the time, and because teenagers are bad listeners.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Do you actually have a science, computer science or engineering degree? Except for the few who a) go into teaching or b) are the top 2% and land a reasearch posting ~90% of your university course load is completely unused on graduation. Of the 48 terms of class (4yrs @ 6 courses/term, 2 terms/yr), I think 6 (programming*2, comp architecture, sw engineering, digital communications * 2) apply to my top-paying telecom programming job.
Those who went into hw design (even more salary than programming) only use 4 courses...
The biggest waste was the 8 terms of advanced calculus. Unless you're doing primary research into magnetic field theory, knowing how to derive the LaPlace and other transforms is something you cram for, get your A, then gleefully drown in a several tankards of post-graduation partying.
Survival of the most fit. What's wrong with giving the best advantages to the kids who can make the most of it? Is there some nobility to having a world full of mediocre achievers?
Putting "dumb"kids in class with "smart" kids limits the heights to which the smart kids can grow. Putting emotionally or psychologically deficient kids in class with normal kids is disruptive to the normal kids. Do you think the smart/normal kids want the dumb/deficient kids in their class? Of course not.
But guess what? The dumb/deficient kids don't want to be there either. These dumb/deficient kids would much prefer to be in classes with others that are more like them, so they can feel "normal" by comparison with their peers, and receive the appropriate teaching methodologies at a comfortable rate that allows them to feel a sense of accomplishment they otherwise could never achieve when mixed in with kids far above their intelligence.
You completely ignore the reality that many supposedly dumb kids are potential smart kids with no motivation to improve, because everyone around them tells them they are hopelessly dumb, and all their dumb friends think it's cool to be dumb.
I can honestly say that, at a minimum, 95% of what I learned in school was worthless. And, even though I'm a college graduate (3.7 GPA) - if you were to give me a 7th grade history exam, I would fail.
In fact, I'd probably fail most 7th grade exams.
The subject matter is pretty specific, even in 7th grade. Even a book I did read in 7th grade English class, now, is all but forgotten. If it was a book I enjoyed, I might remember, vaguely, the plot. Most English books stunk and I remember nothing of them.
Essentially everything I learned in school was to earn a piece of paper that said, 'This guy has a degree'. Even in my major, in college, the majority of what I learned had no use in my day-to-day activities as an adult. I studied mainframes programming languages in college. JCL, COBOL, ASM, a class in C. My first job out of college was programming in .Net - something I picked up from books while going to school.
I'd go so far as to say the *vast majority* of students are not learning for any particular reason at all. In the lower grades, they do what they are told. By college, most of the students, particularly the ones that are going to graduate - have selected a major that is going to lead to a job that will both pay their bills and be tolerable.
My gym teacher made > 100k to teach kids to play softball and basketball. He was also the 'trainer' so I guess he was involved with the sports teams.
Gym teacher.
> 100k.
This is in a town where the median *household* income is 60k.
Just sayin....
95% of what you learned in school was worthless?
So sad.
You know, I did a computing degree in Computer Science. I graduated in 1976.
I reckon I used most of it. Yup, even COBOL.
But what I learned, most essentially, was nothing about computing, as such.
I learned how to solve problems.
I learned how to learn new things.
I learned how to find things from book and people (no Internet then) and use that.
I learned how to - learn.
And it sounds like you did too.
From your parents, your friends, your school teachers, your university education you learned how to find out about your world and solve problems.
On the way, you probably picked up a stack of things you might not think useful - the capital of France, the name of the highest mountain in the world, the currency used in Germany (oops, that's changed - are you keeping up? .. I suspect you are). And you learned to stay up to date. This is good. You are a much more interesting person to talk to than someone who knows none of those things (not necessarily nicer, but probably more interesting).
Not educating people has been tried - it doesn't go well. In general, the countries that give the best education to the highest proportion of its citizens tend to be at the top of the human development index - and that that do badly end up at the bottom. Coincidence? No, I don't think so. (USA is not at the top - 15th - sad, isn't it? [Disclaimer - I live in Australia, at 4th position, so I'm biased])
Learning for a reason - perhaps not. No. I mean, there just aren't that many people that speak Latin, for example, but it is still fairly widely learned.
Again, what is learning about? If you learn just one thing you are going to do badly. When I studied my degree, the logical thing to do would have been to learn COBOL. Just COBOL. That's not what happened - and my life is far richer than it would have been.
So, keep learning. Don't decry your past learning - you are a student all your life.
"Cats like plain crisps"