5 ms·

This is just a carrot version of the NCLB policy. Public school administrators already push teachers to focus on low performers. Teachers hate it because the re

This is just a carrot version of the NCLB policy. Public school administrators already push teachers to focus on low performers. Teachers hate it because the rest of the class stagnates from not getting attention and the low performers often don't improve much because of serious home-life problems that teachers can't fix.

WalterBright 4y ago
Carrots make all the difference. Private industry uses monetary incentives all the time. They do it because it works.
- samtho 4y ago
  A carrot in the right place makes all the difference, the issue here is this is not the place that the carrot needs to be. Most thought-work, learning in this case, is intrinsically motivated. We can classify this motivation as being one or more of the following needs: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. In order for that kind of motivation to function, basic needs must be met. A teacher can have as many carrots dangled in front of them, but you’ve given them an impossible task in a large number of cases.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > this is not the place that the carrot needs to be The carrot is placed exactly where we want it - results. > you’ve given them an impossible task I don't buy that for a minute. It's amazing how people find ways to accomplish impossible tasks when the right motivation is given.
- cmh89 4y ago
  >They do it because it works. You're making an assumption that the issue is that the teachers aren't putting in the effort. Children are not simple input/output machines you program. A food insecure child with illiterate parents is going to require individualized and intensive resources, where a child who has Doctors for parents will generally show up to school with the knowledge they need. Gamification of schools is a really great way to get teachers to completely ignore the development of most of the class to focus on one or two kids. It's amazing that after the widely documented failure of NCLB, people are still promoting these 'work harder' systems.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > You're making an assumption that the issue is that the teachers aren't putting in the effort. Not at all. I'm looking at we aren't getting the desired results. We've tried everything but the obvious - pay for results. > Gamification of schools is a really great way to get teachers to completely ignore the development of most of the class Quite the opposite. The bonus is per student. > It's amazing that after the widely documented failure of NCLB, people are still promoting these 'work harder' systems. NCLB was nothing like I proposed. It's also not about working harder. It's about results.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      >Not at all. I'm looking at we aren't getting the desired results. We've tried everything but the obvious - pay for results. What you're proposing is not "obvious" to anyone who actually studies education. >Quite the opposite. The bonus is per student. How familiar are you with education? Children develop at different paces but are grouped by age, at least until high school. Teachers don't just teach to get the kids to the next grade, or at least they shouldn't. Under what you are proposing, it doesn't make sense for a teacher to spend any time on a kid who is already going to go on to the next grade. There is no incentive to challenge them with harder books, or harder math problems. Like, we literally already tried this with NCLB. The ended in the most obvious way possible. Teachers taught to get test results, standards were lowered to make it easier to move to the next grade, children who were excelling were ignored by their teachers who had to focus on children who were lagging. The whole concept behind 'pay for results' is that you think teachers are not putting the effort they could in. >NCLB was nothing like I proposed. I encourage you to do some reading on this topic. You're literally just describing a positive incentive based NCLB. You have the same operating theory that the designers of NCLB had. >It's also not about working harder. It's about results. This is a meaningless statement.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > I encourage you to do some reading on this topic. I did. The NCLB Act has precisely ZERO monetary incentives for teachers. It has nothing in common with my proposal. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-... It was obviously written and enacted by people who have no idea how incentives actually work.

WalterBright 4y ago

Carrots make all the difference. Private industry uses monetary incentives all the time. They do it because it works.

samtho 4y ago
A carrot in the right place makes all the difference, the issue here is this is not the place that the carrot needs to be. Most thought-work, learning in this case, is intrinsically motivated. We can classify this motivation as being one or more of the following needs: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. In order for that kind of motivation to function, basic needs must be met. A teacher can have as many carrots dangled in front of them, but you’ve given them an impossible task in a large number of cases.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > this is not the place that the carrot needs to be The carrot is placed exactly where we want it - results. > you’ve given them an impossible task I don't buy that for a minute. It's amazing how people find ways to accomplish impossible tasks when the right motivation is given.
cmh89 4y ago
>They do it because it works. You're making an assumption that the issue is that the teachers aren't putting in the effort. Children are not simple input/output machines you program. A food insecure child with illiterate parents is going to require individualized and intensive resources, where a child who has Doctors for parents will generally show up to school with the knowledge they need. Gamification of schools is a really great way to get teachers to completely ignore the development of most of the class to focus on one or two kids. It's amazing that after the widely documented failure of NCLB, people are still promoting these 'work harder' systems.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > You're making an assumption that the issue is that the teachers aren't putting in the effort. Not at all. I'm looking at we aren't getting the desired results. We've tried everything but the obvious - pay for results. > Gamification of schools is a really great way to get teachers to completely ignore the development of most of the class Quite the opposite. The bonus is per student. > It's amazing that after the widely documented failure of NCLB, people are still promoting these 'work harder' systems. NCLB was nothing like I proposed. It's also not about working harder. It's about results.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    >Not at all. I'm looking at we aren't getting the desired results. We've tried everything but the obvious - pay for results. What you're proposing is not "obvious" to anyone who actually studies education. >Quite the opposite. The bonus is per student. How familiar are you with education? Children develop at different paces but are grouped by age, at least until high school. Teachers don't just teach to get the kids to the next grade, or at least they shouldn't. Under what you are proposing, it doesn't make sense for a teacher to spend any time on a kid who is already going to go on to the next grade. There is no incentive to challenge them with harder books, or harder math problems. Like, we literally already tried this with NCLB. The ended in the most obvious way possible. Teachers taught to get test results, standards were lowered to make it easier to move to the next grade, children who were excelling were ignored by their teachers who had to focus on children who were lagging. The whole concept behind 'pay for results' is that you think teachers are not putting the effort they could in. >NCLB was nothing like I proposed. I encourage you to do some reading on this topic. You're literally just describing a positive incentive based NCLB. You have the same operating theory that the designers of NCLB had. >It's also not about working harder. It's about results. This is a meaningless statement.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > I encourage you to do some reading on this topic. I did. The NCLB Act has precisely ZERO monetary incentives for teachers. It has nothing in common with my proposal. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-... It was obviously written and enacted by people who have no idea how incentives actually work.