I haven't posted in a day or so and it's given me a chance to reflect. I didn't intend this blog to just be a recantation of the day's events but rather how my daily activities influence my intellectual wanderings. Since I didn't have anything deep to offer, I took a day off. Now I'm back and swinging...
What are we coming to? Tonight, while on the elliptical, I watched the Jon Stewart Show and the Colbert Report. This is how I get my current events. The regular nightly news is just too dull in comparison. And the Today show is on until the kids get up.
The Chancellor of New York Public Schools was on the CR episode aired tonight (it was a repeat from Sept. 12). He discussed paying students to do well in school.
This gets a resounding WTF from me. Last I checked, that's the point of school---go, learn, and thus do well.
I get that not every child will do well in school (thanks Darwin, we're not all special) but why should students get a monetary reward/incentive to do what they're supposed to? What does this teach students? How is it in any way appropriate to pay a 7th grader $500 to pay attention and apply themselves? This assumes that a 7th grader has the maturity to handle being given such a large amount of money. Or that parents, who send their students to public school more than likely because they can't send them elsewhere or even choose not to, are going to support this.
Again, intellectually I understand the concept behind this program. The Chancellor was arguing that we need to use ingenuity to get the attention of kids these days. But as a pragmatist, I just have to say-UH NO.
When I was a child, I remember that my parents periodically gave me an allowance. It wasn't a routine occurrence b/c my parents (smartly) wanted to know what I was buying and what I had rather than send me off blindly to do what I wanted with money. I remember once asking my mom why I couldn't earn extra money for doing my chores since that's how most of my friends earned their allowance. She explained to me that my chores are just things that have to be done. That you don't get rewards for doing things you're supposed to. You get them for doing something special. It made sense then and it makes sense now.
Here is the video from the show:
What do you think?
In comparison, last week author/commentator Laura Ingraham was interviewed on the Today Show. She's written a book about the decline in American society. She deems it the pornification of America. She argued that the behavior of most celebrities should not be deemed news worthy, that ads campaigns such as Abercrombie & Fitch are indecent (which they are, but I still like looking at the bags--even at almost 27!) and that we as a society should take a stance against this trend. She spent a little too much time knocking the Today Show in her attempt to get her message across, but if you can get past that, she makes some interesting points.
I couldn't imbed the code (as it wasn't offered) but here is the link:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=6657b6e2-2df6-42b7-964a-cacc1af62c5b
So after watching this evening's Colbert Report, I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if these two (Chancellor Joel Klein and Laura Ingraham) were to meet for some coffee tawk in NYC.
I know some of you reading this are either New Yorkers or teachers or both so is this just another crazy movement (paying kids) that will be gone in a New York minute? Can America retrieve its culture from the gutter? Who would come out on top if the two panelists were to have it out?
Ahh, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall with my locks, cream cheese, and a bagel.
Monday, September 17, 2007
They should get together for a little coffee tawk
Posted by Maria at 9:47 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
*my first thought is that if an extra couple thousand dollars over the course of an public school career will get a kid who would have dropped out to graduate, it's worth it.
but one would hope that that couple thousand dollars would be put into a decent program or maybe (gasp) to PAY THE TEACHERS WHAT THEY DESERVE so maybe everyone would benefit.
because if we're talking about the kind of kid who might drop out, who knows what the home life is like.
or how long a stack of cash would last in that environment.
*catchphrases annoy me to no end. it's hard for me to take her seriously. also - you can't just yell about the problem.
*and FINALLY, a coffee talk would be good, but only if there were no cameras. i always wonder what public figures are really thinking.
(and thus the longest comment ever comes to an end.)
That was my first reaction when I heard about paying kids to stay in school (I heard $100/week) but the argument I heard was that this was intended for "at-risk" youth who would drop out of school to try and make that money. So instead of a 13 year old dropping out to sell drugs he/she would be offered money to stay in school...
At-risk youth has been my target audience since college and I think it would be awesome if something like this would work but unfortunately selling drugs will make you much more than $100 a week. Unfortunately, the "street life" become much more appealing to these kids.
Well, I think it's a question of what "doing well" is. If you, as a parent, want to give some sort of incentive to get a C student to shoot for, say, an A-, great.
I personally think that it's a kid's job to do well in school. I'm not saying that each child has to be an A student, but frankly, it's not too hard, when you put in some effort, to get a B or C. Let's be honest: most teachers grade on effort, if not end result. If you try, ask for help, or even request extra credit, you are going to get credit.
When Alanna is older, she will have set chores, and then she will have chores for which she can earn allowance. The allowance will be based on how often she does those chores. She can look at it like this: for her regular chores, she gets her room, boards, clothes, food, etc. For doing extra chores, she can get a bonus, just like at work. When she is in school, I will probably reward her for A or A+ grades, particularly when it comes to subjects which are troublesome for her. However, she will be punished (privileges will be taken away) when she does poorly. I think that's just as important.
I think there's too much avoidance of "personal responsibility," if you will. I think teachers should get more money, but you knew what you signed up for when you became a teacher. You can't become a teacher and then say, "well, if I made more money, then I'd try harder." You can work towards increased pay AND be an effective teacher...the two are not mutually exclusive. The same goes for students; you can't just say "oh, well, it's too hard" and let it go at that. Anything worth doing is difficult at times...kids might as well learn that early. Incidentally, as a Catholic, I feel the same way about the clergy, i.e. that priests and nuns shouldn't have to be celibate, but until the ruling comes from up high, that's the way it has to be. But I digress.
Good topic for discussion, Maria.
Love,
The Meanest Mom Who Ever Lived
And in reference to "at-risk" youth...I think mentoring programs would be more effective, because A.) for the reasons that Jen Mageo listed and B.) because the influence of one strong person lasts longer than a C-bill burning your palm. I don't remember every dollar bill that I've ever had, but I do remember people who took the time to teach me.
Post a Comment