Education Experimentation

rivrrat said:

I see no reason why this wouldn't work or shouldn't be implemented. We've already done this in elementary schools using the "gold stars" and whatnot. It's a reward system just the same.

Click to expand...

Seriously.

In my Spanish class, we would get stickers that we could use to trade for cool things.
In my Math class, we would compete against the other classes to win pizza parties.
In my English class, if you got every word right on the spelling tests for a semester, you got $25 worth of books.
In my Science class, if you got the best grade on a test you got to take home some cool rocks or chemicals (which is a bit odd now that I think of it).

In the larger sense, if you did well in school overall, you won various small "scholarships" (i.e. cash awards) that came from the school.
If you did very well, you won larger scholarships, both from individual universities and other organizations.

Hell, even the Federal Government already does this: National Merit Scholarship Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RightinNYC: That sounds ideal - and beneficial - without being overboard.

My big sweet-spot in school was orchestra. My grades failed while my violin performance grew so my parents threatened to pull me out if I didn't bring up my other grades. . . that actually worked. I improved my grades, stayed in orchestra and continued to improve.

However - whenever doing some type of incentive someone MUST continue it for it to be beneficial and fully effective. . .you can't just give a reason for doing well and then take it away. . .
In high school, after I was already first-chair violinist, my parents moved to a school district that didn't have an orchestra program. I then had to drive with my Dad once a week to another state (2 hours away) to go to private lessons and a student orchestra (non-school, but state wide) and it sucked. I was one of the few there who actually gave a ****, lessons were crappy because we spent a lot of time waiting while the instructor helped out the students who didn't have quite the same level of umph, and, well, I had to ride in a car with my Dad for 4 hours . . .didn't get home 'til 11:00.

It sucked - I lost interest completely and the one thing I enjoyed was ruined - I dropped out and gave up playing :shrug:

So - their idea worked so long as it was implementable but when life took us in a different direction I couldn't keep the same interest going.

megaprogman said:

-- What is your opinion, good idea or bad idea?

Click to expand...

When I was at high school, my best friend was offered £10 for every grade A he got in his 'o' level exams, he also had very encouraging parents who were involved. He went on to be a research chemist after graduating from Cambridge - so I was determined to try and give my kids the same start.

Working in teaching now, I deal in something called EMA where poorer kids are offered up to £30 a week to stay on in school after 16.

When EMA first started, you simply had to turn up, stay all day and leave at the end of the day. Some of the kdis in receipt quickly realised they didn't actually have to do any work for this £30 a week and that made my life hell as I wasn't allowed to refuse payment if the student did nothing all day. Two years ago, the govt changed the rules and students actually had to work, engage with their studies and keep up with work to get the money. That made a big difference BUT what I see now is those middle income kids, whose parents earn just over the threshold, work their socks off and get nothing. I can see the benefits of the idea - but it is unfair on middle income kids whose parents earn that bit too much but who cannot afford to support their own kids. The richest kids are always OK - they get large allowances or their parents are quite happy to support their kids financially where course costs are high. What also annoys me is that the way bursary rules are set up - those kids eligible for the £30 a week are the only ones allowed to apply for extra financial support.

My personal view is that if we go down the route of govt payments - any govt money should be available to all - that tutors should be involved in the assessment of who gets, how much they get and why (if we do continue this scheme). I really don't like the fact that middle income kids struggle most - social mobility is a fine ideal but in practice I see discontent and unfairness for these kids whose parents are struggling to earn a decent living and provide - but don't earn enough to provide as much as others.

Going back to the case of my friend, I did realise that his success was down to the involvement, support and aspirations of his parents in his education and that became what I wanted to provide for my own kids. I do see kids getting £30 a week handouts - many of them don't deserve and I have to deny them if they don't work for it but even then I worry for those kids whose parents made the mistake of earning too much and who are becoming disincentivised or who simply cannot engage in all the educational activities because they fall in the middle and are left in the cracks.

megaprogman said:

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?

Click to expand...

Its a bad idea, it teaches kids to expect something in return for something that they should already be doing.What next reward someone for paying child support, reward someone for paying their bills on time, reward someone because they took garbage out of their house and put it on the curb?

jamesrage said:

Its a bad idea, it teaches kids to expect something in return for something that they should already be doing.What next reward someone for paying child support, reward someone for paying their bills on time, reward someone because they took garbage out of their house and put it on the curb?

Click to expand...

Child Support : You will get legal problems for not complying
Bills on Time : Many companies attach a penalty to late payments
Garbage : A nonsmelly house is its own reward

In all three cases, there are usually fairly immediate repercussions for not performing the right action. Education is different. Typically, you invest either 12 or 16 years into an education in order to get rewarded at the end of that time. That and combined with the fact that most children tend to not think like adults (and in many cases they cannot due to the fact that their brain is not fully formed until 22 or so) and delay gratification pretty much means you have a formula for nonoptimal achievement.

Second of all, when I think about this, its kind of like training for adulthood. You wake up, go to work, do work, go home, get a paycheck. If done right, it could acclimate children into this sort of behavior and increase that sort of responsibility later on.

The payment/incentive idea has some merit.

But it won't work in all situations equally.

That's why I voted for the poll options Good Idea, "other" ethical, Other, and of course, Rootabega.

I think it is definitely a good idea to constantly experiment and explore ever better methods of teaching children and adults.

As to the ethics, I chose "other" Ethical because it would depend on the specific experiment in question.

The other "Other" that I voted for is just in case I think of something that doesn't fit in another category, and I voted for Rootabega just for the hell of it.

:mrgreen:

Your Star said:

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.

Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe children instinctively have a love for learning. Children are naturally inquisitive and want to learn about the world around them. But what most children don't love is the way schools operate.

When I was a kid, I read to learn on my own all the time. I loved learning about dinosaurs and space. I gobbled up biographies on interesting historical figures - Julius Ceasar, Adolf Hitler, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Thomas Edison. I had an entire collection of kid friendly condensed classic literature - Moby Dick, a collection of Edgar Allen Poe stories, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, The Count of Montecristo, Huckleberry Finn. And this was in addition to lots of pleasure reading - comics, mysteries, choose your adventure books.

But I hated school. It was boring and often pointless. Nothing seemed more pointless than answering questions at the end of a chapter I just read using full sentance quotes from the chapter. Or diagraming a sentance, a skill I still have yet to find a real life use for. Many schools suck the love of learning out of kids by being so drab, dull, and repetitive. I did great on most tests, but had no desire or motivation to the pointless day to day assignments and my grades suffered accordingly.

Even now, as I've gone back to school for a degree, I don't love all of my classes. I view a good portion of them as a complete waste of time and money and they nothing more than simply a means to an end - a little piece of paper that will let me go into my chosen profession, which ironically is in education.

fredmertz said:

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.

Click to expand...

Kids suck at realizing the long term consequences of their decisions. Their brains are not yet full developed and "the future" is too abstract and vague for most of them to factor into their decision making process. And besides, what's wrong with doing something just for money? I go to a mind numbingly stupid job that bores me to tears and I do it only for the money. If I didn't need the money, I'd happily never darken their door again. Most people only go to work because they get a paycheck at the end of the week. A tiny percentage of us actually enjoy our professions. If we're going to let school continue to be boring, menial, and soul sucking then by all means we should pay kids to go. It certainly prepares them for many of the careers we all have as adults.

Harry Guerrilla said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, 100% true. In my own experience in doing class observations, I got to sit on some parent teacher conferences. And the kids that struggled had parents that either didn't bother to show up at all or proved to be complete idiots themselves who couldn't be trusted to properly train a dog, let along raise a kid. On the flip side, the kids who did well had parents who were obviously involved in their children's education and wanted to know about what was going on in the class room and how they could help.

Unfortunately, more and more parents are disengaged or even hostile to their child's education. Thus schools need to try and innovate ways to somewhat compensate.

Psychoclown said:

Unfortunately, more and more parents are disengaged or even hostile to their child's education. Thus schools need to try and innovate ways to somewhat compensate.

Click to expand...

Start paying the parents to be interested? :mrgreen:

Your Star said:

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.

Click to expand...

spud_meister said:

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.

Click to expand...

CEOs don't manage corporations out of altruism. Doctors don't treat, operate on, or give prescriptions to patients out of altruism. Utility companies don't provide water and power to homes out of altruism. Nurses in retirement homes don't give care to our elderly out of altruism. Farmers don't grow food out of altruism.

In the real world, everything we do is for money. Everybody needs skills in order to get a job to generate a revenue of money in order to pay for essentials such as shelter, food, utilities, transportation, and luxuries that they cannot provide for themselves and need to pay others to provide for them. This is the basics of our modern economic system.

Children don't learn this, however. They go to school and they don't know why and they're told they need to know all these things and need to have all these experiences and all these skills but they don't realize why. The reason why they don't realize why is because they're too young to understand and they don't get any immediate reward.

However, paying children to go to school will give them an immediate reward to learn the desired skills and knowledge society expects of them. It will cause them to apply themselves and get immediate tangible rewards for applying themselves rather than sitting back and being passive in their education.

Also, it will be paying children for their labor. They are laboring in spending time to do their homework problems rather than spending their time is other pursuits, such as playing video games or athletics or watching TV and movies. Since, in the real world, people are expected to produce a resource in the form of money for their labor, children should be able to as well.

I think conservatives would especially like such an idea as this, as it will teach children and teenagers good business sense. Also, if such a plan is to be implemented, I think government-provided for programs to students should be reduced in order to provide the funds that will go directly to the students who will have the free choice to spend their money however they choose.

Another benefit of this is that it will start getting students to behave in school. Because they have a direct monetary benefit for getting good grades, they will have behaviors that help them get that direct monetary benefit for getting good grades. This includes shutting the hell up and listening and paying attention to the teachers who assign them their grades. Thus, they will be better behaved out of a sense of self-preservation in order to get rewards to buy their essentials and luxuries.

I always hear about how we spend a fortune on students in this country and yet the education rates keep getting lower and lower and lower. That's because it's a lie. In truth, our nation spends a fortune on everyone and everything else but the students. We spend money on educators, on administrators, on supply and equipment and programs and services and computers. But not one penny goes directly to students. So I say let's have them earn some money for those students who apply themselves to get good grades. It'll reap better rewards than anything else we've tried.

Good idea until proven otherwise.

megaprogman said:

Child Support : You will get legal problems for not complying
Bills on Time : Many companies attach a penalty to late payments
Garbage : A nonsmelly house is its own reward

In all three cases, there are usually fairly immediate repercussions for not performing the right action. Education is different. Typically, you invest either 12 or 16 years into an education in order to get rewarded at the end of that time. That and combined with the fact that most children tend to not think like adults (and in many cases they cannot due to the fact that their brain is not fully formed until 22 or so) and delay gratification pretty much means you have a formula for nonoptimal achievement.

Second of all, when I think about this, its kind of like training for adulthood. You wake up, go to work, do work, go home, get a paycheck. If done right, it could acclimate children into this sort of behavior and increase that sort of responsibility later on.

Click to expand...

You raise an interesting point.

Punishments for failing to satisfy demands is always acceptable - but reward *for* satisfying demand? Why is that questionable to many people? That's interesting on a psychological level.

samsmart said:

I always hear about how we spend a fortune on students in this country and yet the education rates keep getting lower and lower and lower. That's because it's a lie. In truth, our nation spends a fortune on everyone and everything else but the students. We spend money on educators, on administrators, on supply and equipment and programs and services and computers. But not one penny goes directly to students. So I say let's have them earn some money for those students who apply themselves to get good grades. It'll reap better rewards than anything else we've tried.

Click to expand...

I agree with this! I agree with your whole post, but especially this part. My school is such in need for "money for education" that they're hitting me up for money via fundraisers all the time. If that money would truly benefit my children by giving it DIRECTLY to my children then of course the obvious answer would be to give it DIRECTLY to my children - not to the school and in part to some non-school chocolate company.

Especially if paying the student costs less - and produces better results - than Head Start programs or adjusting class sizes (=more teachers) then why not do it? Instead of falsifying grades and just scooting kids through school (as a school district in my state was actually caught doing) why not actually reward success and encourage stellar performance?

When I was a kid/teen I could have done great - but an A or B wasn't worth it, to me. It meant nothing. Other than an A or B grade to make my parents happy there seemed to be no purpose at all - so I did other things, instead. I regret that *now* - all these years later - but why do we really have to go year after year *knowing* how kids think and what they value, and still insist that they must learn just because they're suppose to learn?

Side comment. I am noticing that the polling for this question is not falling on party or ideological lines. I think this is great and helps promote some real discussion. Overall, I hope more questions are asked in such a way that we get fewer talking points and more honest analysis.

megaprogman said:

Child Support : You will get legal problems for not complying
Bills on Time : Many companies attach a penalty to late payments
Garbage : A nonsmelly house is its own reward

Click to expand...

An educational equiviolent would be low wage job, homelessness, on welfare or in prison.

In all three cases, there are usually fairly immediate repercussions for not performing the right action. Education is different. Typically, you invest either 12 or 16 years into an education in order to get rewarded at the end of that time. That and combined with the fact that most children tend to not think like adults (and in many cases they cannot due to the fact that their brain is not fully formed until 22 or so) and delay gratification pretty much means you have a formula for nonoptimal achievement.

Click to expand...

Then have bums, welfare recipients and prison inmates tell kids the downside to getting crappy grades in school. Not reward them with cash for something that they should already be doing.

jamesrage said:

Then have bums, welfare recipients and prison inmates tell kids the downside to getting crappy grades in school. Not reward them with cash for something that they should already be doing.

Click to expand...

Children are biologically incapable of fully understanding and appreciating the long term consequences of their decisions. Their brains are not full developed. Say that ten times before you post again so it has a chance to sink in.

You can tell kids how important good grades are for their future. You can show them examples of how poor grades can lead to a poor life. But when it comes time for a child to decide "do I do my homework or not?" or "do I study for my test or not?" guess what, he's going to forget about all of your dire warnings. Heck the study itself shows how kids are not fully capable of thinking long term. The cases that had the best results had quick payoffs - weekly. As soon as I saw this, I thought to myself "I hope they provide some kind of immediate incentive rather than a reward at say the end of a semester, because kids forget about the end of the semester when deciding what to do today".

So instead of having some idealized standard of what you want kids to be capable of, you should be focused on what kids are actually capable of. I don't understand conservatives opposing this. Conservatives love to gripe about how public schools suck and how throwing money at the problem isn't working. But here is a guy who is trying to find creative solutions that are cost effective and you immediately reject him on some vague idealistic basis that "kids should love learning" or "they should be doing this anyway".

Psychoclown said:

Children are biologically incapable of fully understanding and appreciating the long term consequences of their decisions. Their brains are not full developed. Say that ten times before you post again so it has a chance to sink in.

You can tell kids how important good grades are for their future. You can show them examples of how poor grades can lead to a poor life. But when it comes time for a child to decide "do I do my homework or not?" or "do I study for my test or not?" guess what, he's going to forget about all of your dire warnings. Heck the study itself shows how kids are not fully capable of thinking long term. The cases that had the best results had quick payoffs - weekly. As soon as I saw this, I thought to myself "I hope they provide some kind of immediate incentive rather than a reward at say the end of a semester, because kids forget about the end of the semester when deciding what to do today".

So instead of having some idealized standard of what you want kids to be capable of, you should be focused on what kids are actually capable of. I don't understand conservatives opposing this. Conservatives love to gripe about how public schools suck and how throwing money at the problem isn't working. But here is a guy who is trying to find creative solutions that are cost effective and you immediately reject him on some vague idealistic basis that "kids should love learning" or "they should be doing this anyway".

Click to expand...

adding to the bolded:

When obviously this isn't working out.

Psychoclown said:

But here is a guy who is trying to find creative solutions that are cost effective and you immediately reject him on some vague idealistic basis that "kids should love learning" or "they should be doing this anyway".

Click to expand...

The reason I reject his ideas because those kids may turn into adults who think they should get something extra like cash or some sort of other bonus for something that they should already be doing. It has nothing to do with loving to learn. I hated school but I still made As and Bs on my report card.

jamesrage said:

The reason I reject his ideas because those kids may turn into adults who think they should get something extra like cash or some sort of other bonus for something that they should already be doing. It has nothing to do with loving to learn. I hated school but I still made As and Bs on my report card.

Click to expand...

Some companies give bonuses for perfect attendance or achieving certain goals through hard work or achieving certain safety goals (X number of days without an accident). But shouldn't workers already be coming into work regularly, working safely, and giving their best effort? Why are we rewarding people for doing what they should already be doing?

Because rewards are an effective motivator and they get results.

I think the key is to actually get the students interested in their studies.

The monetary reward route does that to an extent.

But the true goal should be to get every single student interested to the point that they seek out more info on their own, without any incentives other than the desire to know more.

Such a goal will likely never be fully realized, but it should still be the goal, IMO.

A change has to start somewhere.

The school that he discussed which had crack vials on the ground outside - think of all the many reasons why those kids weren't doing well, make a list.

Parent's weren't encouraging of it
Parent's weren't involved at all
Children didn't see the reason
Their friends didn't do it, why should they?
They're told to go to school by adults - so - it's exactly what some of them don't want to do.
Even if they do want to change, how do they do it? They don't know, they're kids, they don't have the answers.
If their teachers, principle and community leaders don't have the answers then who does?
If Mom and Dad aren't encouraging, if their friends aren't encouraging and their teachers are at the end of their rope - how do you change everything?

It's not only *right now, this one year of students* that needs to change - that change needs to stick with them . . . so they, then, can be different in school and also in life after school. That change needs to stick with them so they can then take more care and passion in their children's education - and on and on.

The change has to start somewhere. Since the kids in this program were mostly underprivileged and disadvantaged then I think they need GREAT role models and GREAT leaders - people who DO give a ****. Just *wanting* Mom and dad to be involved won't actually make Mom and Dad want ot be involved. Just *wanting* students to *want* to do better in school won't make them do better.

This is part of the reason why I'm a bit pleased that Obama is there as an example - Mom, Dad, Uncle, Sister - if these fundamental people in a child's life aren't THERE to guide, encourage and support then someone needs to be.

jamesrage said:

The reason I reject his ideas because those kids may turn into adults who think they should get something extra like cash or some sort of other bonus for something that they should already be doing. It has nothing to do with loving to learn. I hated school but I still made As and Bs on my report card.

Click to expand...

I would compare it more to them turning into adults who think they should get cash for working. To me that sounds like having a job.

I agree with the other poster who used an example of bonuses at work for performance.
We just hit a 1 year with no OSHA at work and we are all getting something extra on our paychecks. Obviously people should work safely due to a desire for self preservation, but it has been shown over and over that a little carrot goes a long way.

Your Star said:

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.

Click to expand...

And yet this is precisely why Parents and Teachers exhort the pupils to do better at school.

So that they will pass the tests and this will enable them to get into a decent University or college at the end of which they will hopefully get a good degree, and with this degree get a good job, that will pay more than the job they might have had if they ignored education.

I agree with the experimenting with education.
But, after several years, if the results are obvious, then quick action should be taken. Is this not the reason for our federal level dept. of education?
Some ideas are so bad that they should be stopped on paper.
Many nations do this, we should learn from them as to what works and what does not.

Jucon said:

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.

Click to expand...

IMO, we over-reward those with bonuses,raises,time off on the job..
Where is the satisfaction from simply doing things correctly?
Education and work are two different things and should be treated as such...

earthworm said:

IMO, we over-reward those with bonuses,raises,time off on the job..
Where is the satisfaction from simply doing things correctly?
Education and work are two different things and should be treated as such...

Click to expand...

Companies don't provide bonuses, rewards, and incentive programs out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it provides results that far outweigh the costs of such rewards. It's a cost efficient method to raise productivity.

Conservatives who argue for vouchers always say they want to apply the free market to education, which is fine. But why do they reject methods that have been proven in a free market setting to be cost effective ways of improving results? Bottom line is if paying kids to read a book results in them getting a better education and thus being better equipped to be productive members of society, isn't that the result we want? I fail to see how this means is so offensive that it doesn't justify the very positive ends that everyone claims to strive for.

The idea of paying children to get good grades strikes me as born of desperation rather than a desire for 'experimentation'.