🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1iplreINNl0h@uwm.edu> dermer@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Marshall Dermer) writes:
>
>
>                       MPS Plan Hires the Wrong Workers
>

    The previous posting was a copy of a 600-word "In My Opinion" which I
    recently submitted to the _Milwaukee Journal_.  Space limitations
    precluded my addressing the usual concerns about pay-for-learning.
    
    Several readers have kindly written to me about their concerns. Below I
    list and discuss such concerns.  (It would be better, however, if
    concerns were posted on this conference rather then sending mail
    directly to me.  Discussing the MPS building program or pay-for-learning
    here may help our thinking about these important issues.)

    I have been told that pay will not enhance learning.  I refer critics
    to Beth Sulzer-Azaroff and G. Roy Mayer's Achieving Educational
    Excellence (1986, Holt, Rinehart and Winston) which reviews much of the
    literature showing that pay for learning works.

    I have been told that pay will encourage children to expect instant
    gratification.  Although it is true that pay would be fairly immediate
    in the lower grades, the time interval between work and pay would be
    gradually delayed as children progressed through school.  By high
    school, students would be paid for learning at the end of each month.
    In this way, pay for learning can foster self-discipline.
  
    I have been told that pay will undermine intrinsic interest. Yes,
    social psychologists have found evidence for this, particularly when
    children are promised and given rewards merely for engaging in a task
    regardless of the quantity or quality of the work. When children,
    however, are promised and receive rewards for superior work interest is
    sustained or enhanced when rewards are terminated.

    I have been told that paying children for learning is bribery. Bribery,
    however, involves a powerful person inducing another to behave in ways
    that violate the latter's self-interest. Paying children to learn is
    not bribery when children will want meaningful, well-paying work as
    adults.

    I have been told that children should learn without pay.  At one time,
    of course, the vast majority of children learned without obvious
    extrinsic rewards when learning was supported in other ways. These
    supports included having a loving family or neighbors who enjoyed
    learning, who bestowed personal admiration for learning, who tutored
    children to enhance learning, or who were successful by virtue of
    learning.  Today, more children enter our public schools with less of
    these precious resources.

    By the way, many people who deplore paying children for learning are
    quite proud to talk of their children winning college scholarships or
    graduate or professional-school fellowships.  When I note that they are
    bragging about their children being paid for learning, they respond
    that these honors were based on merit.  But what determined that merit?
    Substantial portions of meritorious behavior are determined by social
    conditions that are not available to inner-city children.

    I have been told that children should learn for the love of learning.
    Some 700 years ago, Rabbi Moses Maimonides proposed his own
    pay-for-learning system.  He was told then that children should study
    Torah because it is the word of God whom they should love. In turn he
    asked, how are the many adults who obey Scripture because of its promise
    of reward unlike children who read because of figs? To be sure
    Maimonides deplored the use of rewards to motivate learning but he saw
    no other way of bringing children or non-believers to study Torah.

    I have been told that pay for learning will foster materialism.  The
    amount of money to effectively motivate learning, however, is small.  
    For example, one dollar daily per eighth grader may be sufficient.  
    Moreover, money can motivate learning non-materialistic lessons
    concerned with, for example, friendship, charity, or the rewards
    intrinsic to a contemplative life.

    I have been told that many children will spend their earnings on drugs
    or that children will be "shaken down." Children who experiment with
    drugs, however, will discover that drugs interfere with learning and
    reduce earnings. These reductions ought to deter many such students
    from continued experimentation. But the lure of drugs or other rewards
    will tempt some students to access money through guile, theft, or
    extortion. Many of the social inventions that help adults such as
    direct bank deposits can help children.  Furthermore, we should
    recognize that realistic learning objectives will permit the vast
    majority of children to legitimately earn rewards. Nevertheless, these
    are difficult problems which are neither unique to inner-city schools
    nor have stopped adults from being paid for their labor!

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.  Innumerable economists have attributed this difference
to the artificial suppression of competition between public schools. 
Thus a simple way to improve the quality of education provided by the
public schools would be to let each child's parents decide which school
the child will attend, among all the available public schools.  The
government funds would then follow the child to the school of his
parents' choice.  And every public school adminstrator would know that. 
Just as children respond to the presence or absence of monetary rewards,
so will public school administrators: Each WILL do what he has to to
attract students to his school.  That entails finding ways to improve
such things as standardized test scores among students at his school. 
And that entails better teaching. 

Dan Offutt
-- 
Dan Offutt

In article <1993Jan12.010953.28946@mixcom.com> daniel.offutt <daniel.offutt@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
>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

Do they?  Lets say they do, for the sake of my next question.

WHY?

The example used to justify the pay-for-education was "when the 
parents were involved by rewarding the child"  In the case of 
a parochial school, would you agree parental involvement is going to
be higher?

Now, the next question is harder to answer, for the reason that each
parent/child relationship is different.     

If the key (ok ONE of the keys) to a students succes is parental
involvement, how can the government/schools/society obtain more
parental involvment?

>student.  In other words, the parochial schools provide better education
>for less money.  Innumerable economists have attributed this difference
>to the artificial suppression of competition between public schools. 

Not to mention the even more innumerable teachers who will tell you
that the parocial institutions PAY LESS than the public schools.
(education majors reading this, please feel free to chip in some
numbers here....)

>Thus a simple way to improve the quality of education provided by the
>public schools would be to let each child's parents decide which school
>the child will attend, among all the available public schools.  The

And how does this system address 'everyone' trying to put all their
kids in 'the best school in Milw.?'  In a 'truly competative environment'
one answers excessive demand with excessive price.

Please address the situation of 'everyone' wanting to send their
child to school X.

(Now **I** don't have an idea how to fix either the parents who don't
give a damn, nor how under a 'pick the best school' what you do with
the non-picked school.  BUT:
This was a small blurb I heard:  The prob. is HOW the education is done.
The model is based on events of old.  Before the student had things
like television (passive activity) or Nitendo (lots of action, noise,
excitement, ad nausium) etc.  Thus the attention span is much shorter
and the child expects a bit more action than the avg. classroom.
With the new tool of the computer, perhaps the day of HOME EDUCATION
will/should return.

Technology changing education is not new.  Mass-produced paper
replaced the slate each student used to have.  

I'll stand with the idea the model used today for education is
incorrect for the tools aviab. and the way to go is home based
computer driven teaching.)

so there. :-)

comments?


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.

dermer@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Marshall Dermer) writes:

 >I have been told that paying children for learning is bribery. Bribery,
 >however, involves a powerful person inducing another to behave in ways
 >that violate the latter's self-interest.

From 'The New (1992) Websters Dictonary':

Bribe 1. (n) a secret gift (usually of money) offered to a person in a
         position of trust, e.g. a public servant, to persuade him to
         turn his power to the advantage of the person offering the gift
         || any enticement meant to condition behaviour.

It would be a bribe. But I'm not sure that I have a problem with that. We
would have to wait until the practice became widespread to understand the
real effects of such a program. I suspect it might be worthwhile as a method
to at least get them (underpriviledged, unmotivated kids) though high school.

I remember rushing down to the local McDonalds with my grade school report
cards and filling up on free cheeseburgers, one for each A. What ever
happened to that? My fifth grade son regularly comes home with free pizza
coupons from 'Pizza Hut' for the extra books he reads. Perhaps some local
franchises could be persuaded to start something similar in Milwaukee.

It might also be wise for the school to be involved in some way to see that
at least part of the money gets put in some kind of school administered bank
and have withdrawals controlled in some way. I recall the recent 'Christmas
Party' at a Cabrini Green school where parent 'volunteers' stole childrens'
presents donated by Montgomery Wards, and were later seen selling them on
the streets.


glenn  

(UWM alum, BA Math 84)

|Glenn Popelka               | popelka@ody2.uchicago.edu
|Sr. Programmer/Analyst      |   
|University of Chicago       | 933 East 56th Street
|Laboratory for Astrophysics | Chicago, IL 60637-1460
|    and Space Research      | (312) 702-7803

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:
>
>

>
>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.

 No doubt!!  The parochial schools teach the children who have parents who
 are most interested in education.  With better social conditions at home to
 promote learning, there are simply better students at private schools.
 Under a school choice system, the best schools will skim off the best
 child/parents.  These schools, of course, will be able to charge more too.
 Compare the tuition in the lower grades at the University School (~$5000)
 with those of another private school that does not have such a positive
 track record . . . The Woodland's School (~$2,500).

>Dan Offutt
>-- 
>Dan Offutt
>

  Marshall

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

 

In <1iu22tINNhq2@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>In article <1993Jan12.010953.28946@mixcom.com> daniel.offutt <daniel.offutt@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:

>>Thus a simple way to improve the quality of education provided by the
>>public schools would be to let each child's parents decide which school
>>the child will attend, among all the available public schools.  The

>And how does this system address 'everyone' trying to put all their
>kids in 'the best school in Milw.?'  In a 'truly competative environment'
>one answers excessive demand with excessive price.

>Please address the situation of 'everyone' wanting to send their
>child to school X.

Well, if 'everyone' decides that Apple computers are the best personal
computers, that will simply permit Apple Corporation to grow.  It would
be the same for a good school.  Heavy demand for enrollment would create
a huge prospective cash flow for the good school, enabling it to obtain
financing for new buildings and staff. But let's cut to the crux of the
matter here.

Increasing competition in the education industry will not necessarily
yield the same quantity of benefit to every school child.  But it will
increase the average benefit across all school children -- by comparison
to what the present public school system yields.


-- 
Dan Offutt