Jonathan Blanks looks at the practice of paying kids for good test scores.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Gimme Back My Dog | July 23, 2007, 3:49pm | #
Swarthmore psychology professor and Paradox of Choice author Barry Schwartz argues that the use of incentives could "make the learning problem worse in the long run... unless we're prepared to follow these children through life, giving them a pat on the head, or an M&M or a check every time they learn something new."Man, if only there were some kind of system in place where workers who had specialized skills were better compensated than those without them.
x,y | July 23, 2007, 3:52pm | #
You could also argue that children are already paid for performing well in school, i.e., through higher grades (which allow for better college prospects and eventually better job prospects). Not all payments have to be cash.It would be far more effective to charge tuition to all public school students and give academic scholarships to kids with outstanding grades. I have no doubt parents would become much more involved in their children's educations if they had to pay for it.
Russ 2000 | July 23, 2007, 4:16pm | #
I think it's a good idea. I'm in favor of anything that makes children more cynical about the government.ummmm... | July 23, 2007, 4:17pm | #
that's my $25 bucks. give it back.brian | July 23, 2007, 4:30pm | #
x,yYou could also argue that children are already paid for performing well in school, i.e.,through higher grades (which allow for better college prospects and eventually better job prospects)
You could also argue that kids don't realize this, so they don't try as hard as they later wish they had.
ummmm...
that's my $25 bucks. give it back.
The program is funded entirely out of private charity, including Mayor Bloomberg's own pocket.
Marcvs | July 23, 2007, 4:32pm | #
Wait, public schools are there to give us an "intrinsic love of learning?" I love learning, but my primary education did everything it could to try to make me hate it. It wasn't until college that I, 1) realized that I actually loved math and 2) discovered that classes could actually be challenging and interesting at the same time.I'm not making a general statement about public schools, but mine was wasteland of mouthbreathers and their enablers (teachers).
x,y | July 23, 2007, 4:46pm | #
You could also argue that kids don't realize this [that they're paid with grades, not cash], so they don't try as hard as they later wish they had.You're joking, right? I'd like to meet the kid who hasn't been told this.
x,y | July 23, 2007, 4:49pm | #
The program is funded entirely out of private charity, including Mayor Bloomberg's own pocket.At first, sure. And because they won't want to be seen as failures they'll grasp at any shred of success. Then they'll sell that success and try to get into our pockets to fund more.
What will they think of next? Teacher incentives? That's just too icky to contemplate, to think teachers might perform their duties for any other reason than to fill the li'l bastards' heads full o' knowledge.
I predict that this incentive will indeed boost test scores, but that the boost won't persist in the absence of incentive. In other words, the boost will only be because the students try harder on the test, not because they learned more. Standardized "achievement" tests mostly test for pure IQ, anyway.
brian | July 23, 2007, 4:53pm | #
x,yYou could also argue that kids don't realize this [that they're paid with grades, not cash], so they don't try as hard as they later wish they had.
You're joking, right? I'd like to meet the kid who hasn't been told this.
That's not what I meant. "this" was referring to the idea that better grades will lead to greater financial success. I know I never felt that way growing up. If you ask an 8th grader what benefits he gets from better grades, how many do you expect to say that it will increase their future wages?
I never felt that working hard could help me succeed financially until the end of high school/beginning of college.
x,y | July 23, 2007, 5:11pm | #
I know what you meant, brian, I just didn't summarize it properly.As I mentioned earlier too, I'm afraid this will end up being another taxpayer grab when it's all said and done.
Dave B. | July 23, 2007, 6:02pm | #
Standardized "achievement" tests mostly test for pure IQ, anyway.So IQ is nothing more than simple test-taking skills now? I didn't know that a Princeton Review class had the ability to improve my brain chemistry! Standardized achievement tests only measure IQ in that they measure the same thing as IQ tests, which is nothing meaningful.
Also, anyone who argues that extrinsic rewards reduce the desire to learn is being dishonest if they support grades but not cash rewards. Grades exist only to reward children and later to classify them. Neither of these are educational goals.
Frank | July 23, 2007, 6:03pm | #
That's not what I meant. "this" was referring to the idea that better grades will lead to greater financial success. I know I never felt that way growing up.Perhaps because that's not true. Statistically, people who get better grades do not do better financially. This is why places like Harvard -- who want their students to do really well in life so they come back and give them big, fat donations -- put little weight on grades.
Another Phil | July 23, 2007, 6:24pm | #
Learning in school creates value for the student alone. It is fundamentally different than getting paid for a job in which you create value for the person paying you. That a student may not understand this doesn't change the underlying concept. If schools pay students for learning basic skills, when will they learn that simply taking care of themselves doesn't entitle them to special recognitions or rewards? The assumption, I'm sure, is that once kids mature, they will grasp the value of education themselves. Maybe. However, that assumes that they will grow out of their sense of entitlement after years of being taught not to.Also, I think that this program screws the most vulnerable kids: those who won't go to college and have to start their working life right out of high school. To the degree that they can be successful and comfortable materially, they will have to learn and work hard without any guarantee beforehand that they will be rewarded for it (although they may have a reasonable expectation that they will).
Finally, if we (or donors, or whomever) are going to spend more money on schools, shouldn't the focus be on making the schools better, not bribing students to perform well in subjects that aren't being taught proficiently or interestingly?
The AntiHumanist | July 24, 2007, 12:02am | #
The argument is implicitly racist: while white and Asian students can succeed without monetary incentives, black and Latino students cannot. Even regarding class, it is prejudiced: wealthier students can; poorer students cannot. While we discuss students and teachers, politicians and bureaucrats, is anybody inquiring of parents, 'If Student A can attend a test without being paid to do so, why not your son?'clueless white person | July 24, 2007, 10:30am | #
Perhaps white and asian families already reward success? When my kids bring home straight As on their report cards, they are rewarded with a Lunchable, instead of their normal PB&J or chicken sandwhich.I am sorry but I am in toal disagreement with "paying" a child to do good in school. The reward in itself is knowing that you wprked hard and studied hard and have achieved your own excellence in your education. I have an 11 year old son who is an honor student. I tell him the reward is knowing that your "smarts" can not be taken away from you. Your character and your intelligence and self pride is what will get you far. as long as you havethat and continue to achieve excellence in education with help from mentoring and prayer...you can grow up in a Man who can make much more than $25.00 for a test.
Tara | July 24, 2007, 12:41pm | #
We have to teach "self discipline". We have to teach them that knowledge is power. We have to make them realize that without education, $$ can not be made so easily for most people.I have been teaching my son algebra since he was in Kindergarten- I made it fun and entertaining, now he is an honors math student and going to Junior High and I am a woking single mother. We have to be there with them every step of the eay, we as educators and parents have to be more involved, learn what they learn, read what they read, Love them so that they will loveto learn and love themselves, not just the idea of having money.
Ventifact | July 24, 2007, 3:33pm | #
I think clueless is in significant part correct. Families with lots of (or any at all) "disposable income" [an odd term] can and do give material rewards to kids for their work at school. Think of the cliche of the cute little Volvo for graduation, except in smaller increments over time.Many of the concerns regarding this type of reward system are founded, but they overlook the fact that even though mature adults may have no need for certain stimuli to provide them with motivations to maintain good habits, those stimuli might work well to instill the habits in children in the first place. A material reward might be the incentive that causes a kid to actually try studying for a test (or even attending!), but after earning a few bucks the kid might realize he's getting a lot more out of it than pocket money, he's learning what it feels like to succeed. Self-respect and a high regard for the intrinsically valuable in life are good, but even -- especially -- a single mother would grant the value of 'wordly' success. Growing up in a neighborhood without opportunity leaves a kid without any sense that hard work has purpose. This program sounds like it attempts to fix that.
Of course, it's still too bad it has to be gov't. Good/charter schools work exactly like Tara, where achievement is valued without resorting to payouts. And the sense that work-and-success is possible is begun with this simple act: the complete expectation by teachers that students will work hard and also that they will succeed. Feel-good teaching lets students down simply because the implicit message is that the teacher lacks confidence that the student is up to any real challenge.
J Golden Rockwell | July 24, 2007, 3:42pm | #
Tara, the only part of society which doesn't reward good work is "civil service" (and other forms of welfare).The only downside to the idea of paying students based on performance is that the teachers' unions are terrified that people will starting wanting to pay TEACHERS according to performance.
. . .which, if you think about it, make that an UPside!
Ventifact | July 24, 2007, 5:54pm | #
I'm pretty sure anything the NEA is against is something I'm for.I love it! You can't get more capitalist than this. I just wish, as a teacher, I was offered monetary inspiration for my actions of merit. The only thing in the way of that is the fact that many teachers do little or nothing of merit. In turn, those of us who really produce in the classroom just end up frustrated and uninspired - just like those children who produce.