Thursday, January 31, 2008

Good grades pay off literally...

In USA today, Greg Toppo wrote an article titled "Good grades pay off- literally". "In at least a dozen states this school year, students who bring home top marks can expect more than just gratitude." 
As a student in college, I can recall certain times where my mom would give me twenty dollars or so for a "top mark" test or report card. Though it is a good way to get children to study, I feel that if it turns into an unhealthy habit, the child might not perform his or her best when not being rewarded with cash. 
The parents who read this article seem to like the idea, or they do not. Some feel that it is dangerous, and some think that it scholarship money, not flat out cash. 
Going into a deeper level, what are these young children going to do with 500 dollars they receive? Unless a check is made out to the parents, I feel the child can get into a lot of trouble, or even hurt. 
I do not disagree with rewarding your child for their good grades, but honestly, I think this is pushing the limit, don't you think? A comment was made on this article that read: "This is something for parents. Once we get the state involved, soon it will be Washington involved. Next, they will be paid for essays that agree with the government positions. This can get dangerous." Is this person serious? Whose ever idea this was, I feel they are just trying to start brainwashing these innocent children at the youngest age they can, which I think is pathetic.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Learning with incentive...

On USA Today's website there was an article entitled "Good grades pay off — literally" by Greg Toppo which explained a new educational tool emerging in the United States. The title of the article basically gives away what this new educational tool is. Toppo states, "these days, some students are finding that good grades can bring them cash and luxury gifts". In places like New York City, kids are getting chances to win/receive decent amounts of money just for improving their scores on tests they have to take throughout the year. This new incentive to learn has been met with both support and opposition. Tommie Sue Anthony, the president of the Arkansas Advanced Initiative for Math and Science, believes that this new program is good because it provides incentive for low-income and minority students. Others disagree and think it is a damaging concept to continue.

As a student I am opposed to this new form of incentive. I find it to be a damaging practice because it makes me assume that these students cannot get good grades without doing it for free money. I tend to believe that almost all students would try harder if they knew they were getting money in return. Children sometimes get money for doing chores around their house and when this concept is applied to our educational system I think it is rather depressing to think that students begin to do better once money is involved. I don't believe in this new incentive at all. When I worked for something I wanted I did it because I enjoyed being independent and gained a sense of pride when I was able to do something alone. I cannot understand why we still try to solve problems with money. Good teachers do not get more money than bad teachers. The effort you put in at the workplace does not grant you free money. This is why I found this new incentive to be a doomed concept. I believe in helping less fortunate students, but raising test scores does not seem like a good enough reason to give students money.

The Blog Rules and Schedule (Spring 2008)

Welcome, Fundamental Fulminators!

Below is a listing of the blog schedule accompanied by brief rules for participation. If you are scheduled to comment on an entry and the entry is not on the page, feel free to comment on any recent posting.

Blog Schedule

Entries are due on the date listed. Comments (C) are due the day following. Commenters must address the entry posted by the person listed above their name (e.g. Steve must comment on Dan’s entry by February 2nd). Please note that only two entries and two comments have been scheduled. To meet the three entry/three comment requirement, you must contribute a third entry and a third comment on days for which you are not scheduled.

February

1 Dan Carroll

C: Steve Chin

Megan Cook

C: Caitlin Dougher

Nicole Dunne

C: Becky Fall

Ashley Fischetti

C: Katie Jackson

8 Jacynth Johnson

C: Pat Kiely

Heather Siddle

C: Christy Ladue

Lindsay Mang

C: Dominique Marable

Jordan Paolini

C: Laice Redman

15 Steve Chin

C: Lori Richards

Katie Jackson

C: Starr Richie

Christian Ruiz

C: Andrew Sokol

Susan Stewart

C: Nicole Dunne

22 Laice Redman

C: Megan Cook

Jackie Sullivan

C: Jordan Paolini

Kristen Usher

C: Nicole Wabshinak

Hillary Whelden

C: La’Shera Wynn

29 Pat Kiely

C: Heather Siddle

Christian Ruiz

C: Lori Richards

Caitlin Dougher

C: Ashley Fischetti

Starr Richie

C: Jackie Sullivan

March

7 Andrew Sokol

C: Susan Stewart

Kristen Usher

C: Jacynth Johnson

Becky Fall

La’Shera Wynn

C: Nicole Wabshinak

14 Hillary Whelden

C: Dan Carroll

Caitlin Dougher

C: Christian Ruiz

Lori Richards

C: Jordan Paolini

Jackie Sullivan

C: Ashley Fischetti

28 Becky Fall

C: Kristen Usher

Nicole Wabshinak

C: Lindsay Mang

Christy Ladue

C: Megan Cook

Laice Redman

C: Jacynth Johnson

April

4 Dominique Marable

C: Heather Siddle

Nicole Dunne

C: Katie Jackson

Pat Kiely

C: Steve Chin

La’Shera Wynn

11 Starr Richie

C: Susan Stewart

Megan Cook

C: Jackie Sullivan

Andrew Sokol

C: Laice Redman

18 Jordan Paolini

C: Pat Kiely

Heather Siddle

C: Dan Carroll

Hillary Whelden

C: Christian Ruiz

25 Lori Richards

C: Lindsay Mang

Susan Stewart

C: Kristen Usher

Katie Jackson

C: Andrew Sokol

Christy Ladue

C: Starr Richie

Dominique Marable

C: Caitlin Dougher

May

2 Nicole Wabshinak

C: Hillary Whelden

Dan Carroll

C: Becky Fall

Steve Chin

C: Nicole Dunne

9 Ashley Fischetti

C: Dominique Marable

Jacynth Johnson

C: La’Shera Wynn

Lindsay Mang

C: Christy Ladue