I am so totally disgusted by this I can't believe it. I'm not even going to address the direct pedagogical issue (though I think there are studies comparing productivity and work for either intrinsic or extrinsic rewards, and it doesn't look good for the extrinsic).
You have students understandably wanting to drop out because they're placed in woefully overcrowded conditions, the schools are disintigrating, they have few or no supplies, and their teachers are on a revolving door model because they get worn to the bone and, unlike the students, actually have the option of escape. If there's money to pay a student for an "A" every 5 weeks, why isn't there money to give all the students a decent educational environment and social support systems to deal with their challenging environments outside of school?
It isn't racist to claim that African American students are underperforming. It is racist, however, to think that the only reason they are underperforming is that someone hasn't "shown them the money." I'd love to hear what Jonathon Kozol would have to say about this one.
Hello,
A humble request...
Do you, by any chance, happen to know who Secret Dubai (the blogger: secretdubai.blogspot.com) is?
http://whoissecretdubai.blogspot.com/
ditto on everything that *I* said.
I agree there's plenty of money to throw around. I'm not a fan of throwing at students. I'm also not a fan of throwing it at the schools, or the teachers. I am a fan of throwing it at the parents and making them pick a school. I know there are issues in that model, but until schools need to compete for customers, they have little incentive to excel.
I think this addresses success and failure in material terms, which is sorely needed in discussions of the American public education system, and Kozol is a good example of that, and certainly a more comprehensive view that takes the whole person into account.
However, my faith in learning for its own sake and indeed my own decision to pursue an academic career don't turn me off this experiment completely.
I wish we didn't live in a world where the value of education is measured in the same currency as other goods, but we do. And one group - African-American males - is excluded from that system in alarming proportions. (African American, not all black males; students of African descent from other countries do better) Something is going on there, something specific, and while it is interesting and necessary to study the psychodrama at play, perhaps this will rescue a few students from prison.
I turn into the good little marxist girl I was raised to be when I think of the inner cities, now that they're being resettled by young people living in genteel poverty who don't mind because they have social capital (and parents and student loans) to fall back on. Sure young bobos (and I include myself in this category, skin color notwithstanding) might not be able to pay their rent or meet all their expenses. But is soul withering humiliation part of their experience of poverty?
Could it be the case that achievement in school, crudely defined as good grades, will reconnect education with capital and impart the confidence, self esteem and drive that will enable some students to transcend their challenging environments outside of school.
This makes me uncomfortable, I wish education could focus on learning for its own sake, and I might need to take a shower after what I just typed. Of course I wish all students went to school in a decent educational environment. But those challenges are deep seated, even in the physical structures where students are supposed to learn; it breaks my heart to see penitentiaries that pass for schools in Brooklyn.
I agree, this is not the most ideal solution, and it won't work universally. Geoffery Canada's Harlem Children's Zone is a better example of a broad solution that's changing not just the economics but the psycho-social and aesthetic dimensions of success.
But what do we do until then? Isn't this a feasible stop gap measure? A=$50 is an unappealing reduction, but every student pipelined from school to prison with predictable regularity is a heartbreaking tragedy.
So I, and Kerry, I'm not totally disgusted by this.
But still, I think I'll take that shower now.
justme: I respectfully suggest that you read one or all of Jonathon Kozol's books, most recently "The Shame of the Nation," but also "Amazing Grace," "Ordinary Resurrections," and "Savage Inequalities." He has a response to the arguments against "throwing money at the schools" and also addresses the attempts to solve the problem with vouchers. And he does so with far more time, care, and talent than I could begin to apply here. 
Full Disclosure: My libertarian father also paid me for good grades until high school. In middle school, I received $10 for an A, $5 for a B, nothing for a C, and then I would have owed $5 for a D and $10 for an F. With that said, the financial incentives for doing well in school were a distant second to the blatant fear of doing poorly and meeting the disappointed wrath of my parents. In high school, my parents eliminated the positive reinforcement of cash and relied entirely on my desire for self-preservation.
All kidding aside though, incentives (both positive and negative) are strong motivators. And although we'd prefer that students were motivated by the desire to learn, per se, I am not convinced we are at all successful at instilling this motivation on any student and especially not our poorest performing students.
Certainly even the most 'pie in the sky' notion of education -- and remember I really loved my liberal arts education -- provides incentives for students -- grades.
For students who seek good grades and on the way happen learn something, the education community is at least silent and often cries success! Some of those students, myself included, showed their parents -- to make them proud. The value of that grade here is largely external. First, it begins by someone placing a value on the your work. Students then trade in that value for ... love, approval, respect, self-worth, identity, and in my case and yours money.
So what of students and parents who are not motivated by grades? If I live in a community where grades have little value ( ... I can't trade them in for love, approval, respect, self-worth etc...) then what incentive do I have to increase grades? (And remember we have a very difficult time measuring 'learning' and so we access educational success by measuring grades, test scores, behavior etc...)
So IF (and yes it is a HUGE if...) students and their parents are motivated by money and in an attempt to earn money (as oppose to grades), students happen to learn something -- have we really turned educational success into any more of a commodity than it already was?
My point is maybe this isn't as drastic of an 'innovation' as one might initially believe.
I am highly sympathetic to the 'pie in the sky' educational values especially since I actually like to learn. I am unconvinced though that we are at all successful at using these values to teach low performing youth.
I:
Somehow I knew I'd hear from you.
I'll be typically honest - I'm not likely to go read four books on the subject. I did, however, take a look at some of the editorial reviews.
Would you - or anyone interested in taking the time - please brief me on the arguments against empowering consumers to choose their products?
Justme--
One view being articulated here is that education is not, nor should not be, a product. The consumer model is a bad model.
Justme: I'll admit I don't recall offhand Kozol's arguments in the text (it's been over a year since I read his most recent one). But the response is very "feet-on-the-ground" pragmatic in terms of the actual effects of the practice. The idea sounds nice, but the metaphor is flawed. The voucher notion assumes there are tons of lovely school options available on something like a supermarket shelf, and all we want to do is give the disenfranchised the opportunity to buy the good, healthy stuff instead of the cheap unhealthy crap they can otherwise afford (or provided by the big bad bureaucratic gov't).
But choosing a school is not like choosing an item to purchase among plenty. a) there is scarcity, and you can't just build more schools as easily as you can bump up production of product x when demand goes up, so some kids are going to get stuck in the worst schools after all; b) these schools will be truly horrible due to crap funding (because all the funding went to vouchers). Students who couldn't get a space in the "better" school (and students whose parents aren't on top of the voucher thing because, well, they're working two or three jobs or they're crackheads--the weaknesses of the parent should not become punishments of the children) get completely shafted by the voucher system.
Then there's the plain ol' racism, which happens when white (and even non-white) middle class people freak out when "those" people--inner city, usually dark-skinned youth--start showing up in their sweet babies' classrooms, and they find interesting legal loopholes to keep the "others" out. If you doubt this happens, I invite you to look at the statistics Kozol cites in his latest book (if you ever find some spare time to read it).
Also, the consumer/market framework is a bad model for public schools because it assumes that schools fail their students because teachers don't try hard enough; in this mythology schools would compete with each other as products in "the market," to the benefit of students.
Plus, failure in the school voucher system is measured using state tests, that cause a vicious circle of failure as funding is pulled from failing schools....and you end up with no recess or physical education in Miami Dade public schools, unhealthy children who then don't perform well. And the public school system is abandoned in neighborhoods that need it the most, as only the most unfortunate get stuck in it.
I: Much thanks for the efforts.
I agree with the last paragraph.
The middle paragraph I'll meet a tad bit in the middle. We can't build schools tomorrow - that's clear. But over time, schools will be built where needed.
As for the crackheads or the crackhead parents - I'll be that argument gets a lot of play. I wonder (don't know - just wondering) what percentage of the population that is? No solution will fit everywhere and everyone - and I think that may be a distinct minority. I tend to believe there are large numbers of poor, non-crackhead folks out there that can make a better choice.
Effie - I'll never say all teachers don't try hard enough - but I do believe they have limited incentive and/or reason to excel and that does indeed harm students.
Now that I think about it, I'd be ok with more funding for schools - all schools - that don't have a union.
I'm going to try to avoid the "union" bait....(the idea that this is the source of all problems in public education is absolutely ludicrous, however). But I will try to clarify something important. I mentioned two obstacles: people holding two or three jobs and crackheads. I don't find the second case to be the stronger argument or more pervasive case. And I should have added that the well meaning, busy, poor people are sometimes ill-prepared to effectively manipulate a voucher system, sometimes because they are immigrants who don't speak much english. I wish I could remember an education documentary I watched a few years ago (it was one I pretty much hated, btw., as it portrayed public school teachers as all idiots via an obviously heavy handed editing process). In the documentary, which was very pro-charter school/pro-voucher, one major proponent of the system in Los Angeles visits some poor families and finds himself conceding that a major obstacle to the voucher system is the flawed expectation that the families who need the system most would not utilize it best (or at all).
ooh....clunky last statement with a double negative somewhere. I mean, the expectation that those who need the system most could effectively use it is a flawed assumption.
Awww, c'mon. What fun is this if you won't take bait?
I didn't intend it that way. I also don't recall indicating that to be the source of all problems. It's just a personal peeve of mine that I do believe is the source of some, not all, public education problems.
We seem to allocate more and more money to the problem, yet the problems still exist.
How much more money would make it work?
Like to learn, or learning for the love of it, is a ridiculously privileged opinion to have. I don’t think that most people living below the poverty line make it out to a lot of book clubs; I can’t imagine working a minimum wage job and then having the time or energy to pursue anything but survival. I grew up in a world where I was expected to go to college. No college was not an option; not even a part of my reality. These are children, in many cases, have the opposite. They live in communities of uneducated people. Education is not an end in itself like it was for me. They have a huge uphill battle ahead of them. The people making money in these communities are often doing it illegally. I seriously cannot imagine, given those circumstances, why I would want to go to school and learn as a child. Go to school or sell drugs. One is a waste of my time because in my opinion I won’t finish, or if I do finish I’ll be doing the same thing I would if I hadn’t finished. Why exert the effort?
Their parents who come from the same environment, and who subsequently never had “education” do much for them, can’t do much to create this motivation either. These are groups of people that believe, no matter what, that they will end up in the same impoverished position.
Most people get educated for money anyway. You are seriously kidding yourself if you think that all students go to college for personal betterment. Most are there to get a better job; i.e. make more money. Their light at the end of the tunnel is that future CEO position. What do these children have? They hope that they can make it to 40.
So I return to my original question…if I’m not going to college (or I at least know there is no way to ever pay for it), not ever planning to have a job aside from selling drugs or working at mcdonalds, and I know these things because I can’t find one other person to show me otherwise, then why should I while my time away in a classroom I hate?
For the record I’m not thinking of any particular race or group of people, but I will admit that most of my knowledge comes from areas like Baltimore where this is a predominantly African American position. I know there are plenty of impoverished non African populations around the country with the exact same scenario.
In a lot of cases this money isn’t going to infrastructure or environment improvement because its been donated specifically for this purpose. When money does go to these purposes it often gets wrapped up in bureaucratic nonsense. I think these programs are great. I think it would be even better if this money was invested for them so that they could go to college. My plan would be to give them ten dollars, and put forty in an account.
Spaz, great to read your posts again. I have a lot of catching up to do.
Anonymous: I think you make some good points. But you might want to take a look at the results of the Clemente Course in the Humanities. They suggest that there are lots of folks living below the poverty line who are hungry for learning because of the way it enriches their lives. Here's a link:
http://clemente.bard.edu/
(The national Clemente program is now hosted by Bard College.)
Speaking of Clemente: I'd LOVE to be involved in a central PA branch. It would be great for faculty at two or three contiguous colleges to think about putting one together. (*I*: does this interest you?)
Damn *I*. You are so damn eloquent on this subject. Why don't you write a book on this instead?
Effie--
I want someone to take up your first comment. Anyone?
My fault. The anonymous wasn’t intentional, although my moniker isn’t exactly the opposite of anonymous. I think it’s just been an eternity since I’ve posted and the site forgot about me!
Kerry – Thank you for that information. I think that is extremely interesting, and perhaps I was a bit harsh. I’m still not exactly buying it though. I’m wondering if there is a difference though between this program and what we’re actually talking about. The word “humanities” is key. I literally had my entire world opened up for me when I took philosophy 101 in college. It was the first time I had every really thought about anything in my entire life. It was empowering and damn if it wasn’t fun.
We’re not talking about humanities in these schools though…we’re talking about the nails on the chalkboard, mundane, difficult, and outright boring stuff you learn in the early years of your education. I’m not saying it isn’t necessary, but it’s not the kind of fun learning I’m assuming we’re talking about that motivates people.
We’re talking about sitting people down teaching them grammar, basic math, etc. Don’t even get me started on how NCLB attempts to shove even more of this junk down kids’ throats. If anything kills a love of learning…but I digress…
Again, this type of education is necessary, but so very few people actually enjoy this type of learning. You need to learn these subjects in order to move on to other things that actually interest kids.
Plus, I think we’re expecting a bit much from these kids. It takes years to develop a love of education. I frequently wish I paid better attention in my social studies courses in elementary school. I’d love to take them again, and get embarrassed when I’ve forgotten information that I knew at some point. That is not how I felt in 4th grade. I wanted to play outside. We need to figure out how to get that subject matter across so that they can actually develop this love of learning.
Another thing we haven’t discussed is that the money, at least in the situations I’ve heard about, is not only for academic performance. It is also for attendance and behavior. That latter part is nearly impossible to control if parents aren’t a part of the equation.
Spaz! Aw, thanks! But seriously, I'm just repeating what Kozol writes about much more eloquently (and from extensive, hands on experience, whereas I only have my own public school education to draw on and some other anecdotal stuff).
"We seem to allocate more and more money to the problem, yet the problems still exist. "
The operative word *may* be "seem." It would be interesting to look at how much education spending has increased, compare it with spending in other areas, compare it with inflation, etc. The reason I am skeptical is that some of Kozol's--highly detailed--statistics indicate that, in the worst inner city public schools, spending per child is not only about half (or less) of what it is in wealthy suburbs, it hasn't risen much over the last 20 years or so.
Effie (you were "anonymous," if I read correctly, yes?)--I do think the idea of contributing money toward a scholarship fund for students who do well is an appealing notion. My other thought is that this might be rather cumbersome to administrate (but maybe not).
Anyway, my primary reason for responding is because you mentioned Baltimore. This reminded me of the Baltimore Algebra Project, a wing of a national project that took up advocacy and activism, forcing the (state?) government to make good on funds already promised the school system but unallocated. Anyway, I can't do html, but here's the url: http://www.baltimore-algebra-pro...ra-project.org/
Everyone should check this project out, just to get a look at what's possible and to challenge our assumptions about what inner city youth do and don't want. The project is about enfranchising inner city youth by getting them excited and interested about learning math. And they don't use the "test drill" model or the (god forbit) "corporate manager model." They learn the meanings behind mathematical language through innovative exercises and communal support.
Kerry--That definitely sounds interesting. I only had a chance to glance at the link and will look more carefully later, but on the face of it, it looks terrific.
I know I'm late to the party, but there's a similar case I'm seeing here in Africa - theres a company based in South Africa thats offering 50 rand (~$5) to anyone that tests for HIV and tests negative.
Their opinion is that since we offer free services and medicine to those with HIV, whyshouldn't we award those that consistently do the necessary thing to prevent infection?
Regardless of any other implications this has, I'm at least pleased to see people going out and get tested.
I'm sorry for not being able to locate the article - If I find it, I'll post it.
Commenting by HaloScan
