In a recent article in the NYT (does anyone see a pattern here) they were talking about the new influx of programs around the USA that are monetarily rewarding students for their grades, taking tests, and doing well on tests (like the AP tests). They go through some pros and cons to this behavior, and you will have to read the article to get a feel for the pros, because I have to say that I can see nothing but cons to this method of getting students to learn.
First, why are we paying kids to learn when we can barely pay teachers to teach? Wouldn't that money be better spent rewarding teachers for their hard jobs? Second, what happens to kids with learning disabilities? Will their be some sort of special pay scale for them, further stigmatizing them? Third, what about students from financially challenged homes? Will they feel more pressure to perform to bring money home to their families? Will that pressure be too much to place on that child's shoulders? In turn, will students from well off families stop studying all together since they don't need the money?
If we create a system where students expect rewards for everything they do in school, aren't we setting up a system that is really just rewarding students in the short term, but not actually setting them up for a love of lifelong learning? What are those kids going to do when they get to college? or God forbid grad school where we barely get paid anything and in many cases we have to pay them to teach us? Is this really the answer to motivating kids to learn????? WTF?
NYT Article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
right on! although, if we, as a nation, are willing to privatize our public charter schools, then shouldn't we run them like businesses w/ bonuses for the kids that seem to be doing the best by arbitrary measures... we could should probably add some hierarchy with a dash of nepotism and fire kids when the fall behind. oh yeah, we can even lay off kids when there are budget cuts!
Post a Comment