🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.010953.28946@mixcom.com> daniel.offutt <daniel.offutt@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
>In <1iplreINNl0h@uwm.edu> dermer@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Marshall Dermer) writes:
>
>
>>                       MPS Plan Hires the Wrong Workers
>
>>    What is the single factor that could most enhance the performance of
>>    children in the Milwaukee Public Schools?  Our school superintendent,
>>    school board, and many Milwaukeans say we must improve facilities.  I
>>    say we must improve student motivation.
>
>>...
>>    Paying children for learning can provide requisite motivation.  Instead
>>    of educating Milwaukeans about the virtues of paying children for
>>    learning, however, MPS is educating us about the virtues of paying for
>>    buildings.
>
>>    Although other improvements should be made in our public schools, I
>>    doubt that there is another, single, practicable approach that could
>>    more enhance the quality of education.  Pay for learning promotes
>>    relations between work and reward characteristic of responsible adult
>>    life.  This work, unlike much adult work, will result in children
>>    acquiring new capabilities, values, and perspectives.
>
>>    MPS should have long ago presented a comprehensive plan to enhance
>>    student motivation instead of one to construct more buildings. On Feb.
>>    16 I will vote against the school facilities plan, because there are
>>    far more cost-effective ways to enhance learning.
>
>Indeed there are.  One way that may be even more cost effective than
>paying students to learn is introducing greater competition into the
>public school system. 
>
>The parochial schools produce better educated children than do the
>public schools -- generally without resorting to expensive schemes like
>paying children for learning.  Moreover, they do so at a lower cost per
>student.  In other words, the parochial schools provide better education
>for less money.

 Another comment about parochial schools providing better education.

 In my previous posting I pointed out that a choice system would allow
 the best schools to skim off the best students.  So, the least advantaged
 students would end up in the worst schools.  (Would these schools be better
 than the typical public school?  I don't know, but clearly a voucher system
 which does not allow parents to pay for the tuition of the best schools is 
 not going to help the most disadvantaged children.)

 A voucher system--with token public payments--would pretty much return us
 to the system of education that existed before there was public education.
 That is, prior to the 1880's or so there was little in the way of general
 public education.  Those who were affluent sent their children to
 school--the rest of the children went unschooled.  Over time, the public
 saw the harm in this approach and gradually started to pay for education in
 the form of teachers, buildings, and eventually books and supplies.  My
 essay indicates that we must go one step beyond this in the way of
 providing children with motivation.  The source of the motivation is
 artificial or contrived (money) rather than intrinsic to learning.

 Yesterday, I spoke with a friend in Chicago.  She said that she had read a
 story about a program on the West Coast in which building residents agreed
 to tutor children in exchange for their low-rent appartments.  Apparently
 the system works. If you come across the piece I would be interested in 
 the reference.

 Here in Wisconsin we have Learn-Fare.  Parents who receive state aid are
 punished when their children do not attend school.  Why equate
 attending school with learning?

 Contrariwise, what if disadvantaged parents were promised better apartments
 contingent on their children doing better in school.  Wouldn't this
 increase parental involvement and student achievment?  I don't know. 

 I do know, however, that pay-for-learning/behavorial contracting has been
 shown to be effective in scores of studies.  

--Marshall