在加拿大
今天，新的一期TIME杂志来了，孩子刚才高兴地给我念一篇封面文章《Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School?》，介绍现在的美国人是怎样向孩子“行贿”，求孩子好好学习的。看了整个文章：完全是不择手段的金钱利诱。 没有来得及翻译，抢鲜转载如下： Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School? Is Cash The ANSWER? Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly#ixzz0lEe3n4tW In junior high school, one of my classmates had a TV addiction back before it was normal. This boy we'll call him Ethan was an encyclopedia of vacuous content, from The A-Team to Who's the Boss?Then one day Ethan's mother made him a bold offer. If he could go a full month without watching any TV, she would give him $200. None of us thought he could do it. But Ethan quit TV, just like that. His friends offered to let him cheat at their houses on Friday nights (Miami Vice nights!). Ethan said no. One month later, Ethan's mom paid him $200. He went out and bought a TV, the biggest one he could find.Since there have been children, there have been adults trying to get them to cooperate. The Bible repeatedly commands children to heed their parents and proposes that disobedient children be stoned to death or at least have their eyes picked out by ravens. Over the centuries, the stick (or paddle or switch) has lost favor, in most cases, to the carrot. Today the petty bribes a sticker for using the toilet or a cookie for sitting still in church start before kids can speak in full sentences. In recent years, hundreds of schools have made these transactions more businesslike, experimenting with paying kids with cold, hard cash for showing up or getting good grades or, in at least one case, going another day without getting pregnant. (See pictures of kids comparing their paychecks at school.)I have not met a child who does not admire this trend. But it makes adults profoundly uncomfortable. Teachers complain that we are rewarding kids for doing what they should be doing of their own volition. Psychologists warn that money can actually make kids perform worse by cheapening the act of learning. Parents predict widespread slacking after the incentives go away. And at least one think-tank scholar has denounced the strategy as racist. The debate has become a proxy battle for the larger war over why our kids are not learning at the rate they should be despite decades of reforms and budget increases.But all this time, there has been only one real question, particularly in America's lowest-performing schools: Does it work? To find out, a Harvard economist named Roland Fryer Jr. did something education researchers almost never do: he ran a randomized experiment in hundreds of classrooms in multiple cities. He used mostly private money to pay 18,000 kids a total of $6.3 million and brought in a team of researchers to help him analyze the effects. He got death threats, but he carried on. The results, which he shared exclusively with TIME, represent the largest study of financial incentives in the classroom and one of the more rigorous studies ever on anything in education policy. (See Roland Fryer Jr. in the 2009 TIME 100.)The experiment ran in four cities: Chicago, Dallas, Washington and New York. Each city had its own unique model of incentives, to see which would work best. Some kids were paid for good test scores, others for not fighting with one another. The results are fascinating and surprising. They remind us that kids, like grownups, are not puppets. They don't always respond the way we expect. In the city where Fryer expected the most success, the experiment had no effect at all "as zero as zero gets," as he puts it. In two other cities, the results were promising but in totally different ways. In the last city, something remarkable happened. Kids who got paid all year under a very elegant scheme performed significantly better on their standardized reading tests at the end of the year. Statistically speaking, it was as if those kids had spent three extra months in school, compared with their peers who did not get paid."These are substantial effects, as large as many other interventions that people have thought to be successful," says Brian Jacob, a University of Michigan public-policy and economics professor who has studied incentives and who reviewed Fryer's study at TIME's request. If incentives are designed wisely, it appears, payments can indeed boost kids' performance as much as or more than many other reforms you've heard about before and for a fraction of the cost. Money is not enough. (It never is.) But for some kids, it may be part of the solution. In the end, we all want our children to grow into self-motivated adults. The question is, How do we help them get there? And is it possible that at least for some kids, the road is paved not with stickers but with $20 bills? Fryer runs an education-innovation laboratory that has a staff of 17 and an annual budget of about $6 million. His goal is to use the scientific method to figure out how to close the learning gap between America's white and minority kids by the year 2025. When I visit Fryer at his Harvard lab this spring, he hands me an agenda for the day and proudly introduces me to his team. For the next three hours, as we talk about the experiment, Fryer is charming and intense, occasionally lapsing into economist speak and then apologizing for being a "nerd." But Fryer's fascination with the lives and choices of kids is not entirely academic. He grew up poor in Texas, where he lived with his dad, a copier salesman. When Fryer was 16, his dad was arrested for sexual assault and Fryer had to bail him out of jail. Meanwhile, Fryer raised himself, and not very well. He got a job at McDonald's and stole from the cash register. He sold marijuana and carried a .357 Magnum for a while. But he was fiercely competitive on the basketball court and the football field, and that's where he excelled, earning a basketball scholarship to the University of Texas at Arlington. In his first semester of college, Fryer took a calculus class. On his initial exam, he scored 45 out of 100. "My friends started calling me Colt 45," he remembers. The failure enraged him, and his pride kicked in. "I didn't want to be like everyone else from my neighborhood," he says. Fryer started working hard in school for the first time. He graduated in two and a half years with an economics degree. Then he got his Ph.D. at Penn State University, where he began to use the tools of economics to study the problems of inequality. He joined Harvard's faculty at age 26, a case study in the power of shifting motivations. At Harvard, Fryer heard about a school in New York City that was trying to incentivize kids on a small scale. The idea appealed to him because, unlike reforms focused on the teacher or the curriculum, it treated kids not as inanimate objects but as human beings who behave in interesting ways. But he had no idea if it would work.In 2005 he persuaded Gavin Samms, a friend and Harvard colleague, to go to New York City with him to try to sign up some schools for a pilot program. "We didn't know anything about what we were doing," Fryer says. They couldn't afford to stay in New York, so they stayed at a hotel in the Meadowlands a grim tract of wetlands in New Jersey. Then they drove around to pitch the idea to principals. One day while they were visiting a school, they got a call from the school system's headquarters, which had originally approved their project. "They said, 'You gotta leave now,' " Samms remembers. " 'You gotta leave the schools.' " Fryer protested, but he lost. "It was just too political," he says. "It was an election year. They'd already gotten letters saying, 'You can't be paying kids.' "
评论
24小时新浪微博上找俺、悄俺、互粉http://weibo.com/u/2756378825?wvr=3.6&lf=reg 赏
反馈:jmhdong 2010-04-16#2 
4,484 $0.00 回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein doesn't remember kicking Fryer out, but he concedes that the program was contentious. "When people want to try new and different things in education," Klein says, "it will always stir up controversy." In January 2007, after the mayoral election had come and gone, Fryer returned to New York ― this time with a more audacious plan. He wanted to create a treatment group and a control group, just like a real scientist. And he had a $2 million grant from the Broad Foundation, which had taken an interest in Fryer because of the scientific rigor of his approach. This time, Fryer wanted to get a random sample of city schools to participate. Which is not as easy as it sounds. At some schools, the principal and teachers opened their arms wide and said, "Sure. We're struggling here. We'll try anything." At others, Fryer had to spend hours pleading with staff who felt kids should learn for the love of learning ― not for the cash. "To this day, I can't tell you what will predict one or the other," he says. "I could walk into a completely failing school, with crack vials on the ground outside, and say, 'Hey, I went to a school like this, and I want to help.' And people would just browbeat me about 'the love of learning,' and I would be like, 'But I just stepped on crack vials out there! There are fights in the hallways! We're beyond that.' " Eventually, Fryer and his team got 143 schools to sign up. About half would be randomly selected as a control group, meaning the kids would not be paid. In the other half, students would earn money for their performance on 10 routine tests given throughout the year. The summer before the experiment began, a New York Daily News reporter heard about the plan. The story, headlined "It's a Cash Course," quoted an antitesting activist who called the plan "horrendous." One of Fryer's other funders pulled half a million dollars. Fryer got kicked out of the schools again, he says. This time, Klein took him to a Yankees game. A few days later, Fryer was allowed back in the schools. But he started waking up at 3 a.m. to check the newspapers.The anger was not something Fryer had anticipated. "I totally underestimated how pissed off people would be because of this," he says. "This is exactly the kind of R&D education needs. I never said it was going to solve all education problems. I just thought it deserved to be tested." (See the 10 best college presidents.)The most damning criticism of Fryer came from psychologists like the University of Rochester's Edward Deci, who has spent his career studying motivation. Deci has found that money ― like other tangible rewards ― does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that rewards can have the perverse effect of making people perform worse. A classic experiment in support of this hypothesis took place at a nursery school at Stanford University in the early 1970s. There, researchers divided 51 toddlers into groups. All the kids were asked to draw a picture with markers. But one group was told in advance that they would get a special reward ― a certificate with a gold star and a red ribbon ― in exchange for their work. The kids did the drawings, and the ones in the treatment group got their certificates. A few weeks later, the researchers observed the children through a one-way mirror on a normal school day. They found that the kids who had received the award spent half as much time drawing for fun as those who had not been rewarded. The reward, it seemed, diminished the act of drawing. So instead of giving kids gold stars, Deci says, we should teach them to derive intrinsic pleasure from the task itself. "What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning," he says. People of all ages perform better and work harder if they are actually enjoying the work ― not just the reward that comes later. In principle, Fryer agrees. "Kids should learn for the love of learning," he says. "But they're not. So what shall we do?" Most teenagers do not look at their math homework the way toddlers look at a blank piece of paper. It would be wonderful if they did. Maybe one day we will all approach our jobs that way. But until then, most adults work primarily for money, and in a curious way, we seem to be holding kids to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.In the fall of 2007, the New York City experiment began. Fourth-graders could earn a maximum of $25 per test, and seventh-graders could earn up to $50 per test. To participate, kids had to get their parents' permission ― and 82% of them did. Most of them also opened savings accounts so the money could be directly deposited into them. Meanwhile, Fryer and his team found other testing grounds. In Chicago, Fryer worked with schools chief Arne Duncan, now President Obama's Education Secretary, to design a program to reward ninth-graders for good grades. Over beer and pizza in a South Side bowling alley, they sketched out a plan to pay kids $50 for each A, $35 for a B and $20 for a C, up to $2,000 a year. But half of their earnings would be set aside in an account, to be redeemed only upon high school graduation.In Washington, middle schoolers would be paid for a portfolio of five different metrics, including attendance and good behavior. If they hit perfect marks in every category, they could make $100 every two weeks. Schools in Dallas got the simplest scheme and the one targeting the youngest children: every time second-graders read a book and successfully completed a computerized quiz about it, they earned $2. Straightforward ― and cheap. The average earning would turn out to be about $14 (for seven books read) per year.评论
24小时新浪微博上找俺、悄俺、互粉http://weibo.com/u/2756378825?wvr=3.6&lf=reg回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的看着费劲，用字典翻译如下： 在初中，我的同学一人一电视瘾 - 返回之前，它是正常的。这个男孩 - 我们会打电话给他伊桑 - 是一个空洞的内容百科全书从A -团队，谁是老板？后来有一天，伊桑的母亲让他一个大胆的建议。如果他能够不看电视了整整一个月，她给他200元。我们没有人认为他能够做到这一点。但伊森退出电视，就这样。他的朋友们愿意让他在上周五晚（迈阿密风云夜！）欺骗他们的房屋。伊森说没有。一个月后，伊森的妈妈付给他200元。他出去买了电视，最大的一个，他能找到。由于有孩子，有大人试图让他们进行合作。圣经一再命令，听从父母的儿童，并建议不听话的孩子被石头打死，或至少他们的眼睛拾起乌鸦了。几个世纪以来，棒（或桨或开关）已经失去了支持，在大多数情况下，对胡萝卜。今天，小贿赂 - 一个用坐在教堂仍然是厕所或cookie贴纸 - 发言之前，孩子们可以在完整的句子开始。近几年，数百所学校已经使这些交易更加务实，与冷付款，用于显示向上或获得好成绩或至少在一个情况下，很难现金孩子尝试，去另一天没有怀孕。 （见孩子们在学校的照片比较他们的薪水。）我从未见过一个孩子谁不欣赏这种趋势。但它使成年人深刻感到不舒服。教师抱怨的，是我们应该做他们自己的意愿做奖励孩子。心理学家警告说，钱可以让孩子们真正履行降价学习行为严重。家长普遍预测后懈怠的诱因消失。和至少一个智库学者指责为种族主义的战略。这场辩论已经成为了我们的孩子多是为什么不学习他们的速度应该是，尽管几十年来的改革和预算的增加更大的战争的代理战。但所有这些时间以来，特别是在美国的最低表现欠佳的学校只有一个真正的问题：是否行得通吗？为了找到答案，一个名为罗兰弗赖尔哈佛大学经济学家做了一些小教育研究几乎是不可能的事：他跑了多个城市中数百个随机实验教室。他主要用于私人资金支付18000孩子一共有630万美元和一组研究人员，以帮助他分析带来的影响。他得到了死亡威胁，但他进行的。结果，他分享了专门时间，代表在课堂上最大的经济诱因研究 - 和以往对教育政策的任何内容更严谨的研究之一。 （见2009年时间100罗兰小弗赖尔）。实验运行在四个城市：芝加哥，达拉斯，华盛顿和纽约。每个城市都有自己独特的激励模式，这将看到最好的工作。有的孩子支付了良好的考试成绩，不与他人互相战斗。结果是迷人和令人惊讶的。他们提醒我们，孩子，大人一样，不是木偶。他们并不总是这样，我们期望的回应。在城市，预计弗赖尔最成功的，实验没有任何影响 - “零为零得到，”他如是说。在另外两个城市，有希望，但结果是完全不同的方式。在过去的城市，发生了一些值得关注。谁拿工资的下一个非常优雅的全年计划完成他们的孩子阅读能力的测试标准明显好于今年年底。从统计数字上看，这是因为，如果这些孩子们花了3个月的额外的学校，与他们相比，谁没有拿到工资同行。“这些都是实实在在的效果，因为许多大型people想到其他干预措施是成功的，”布赖恩说，雅各，一个美国密歇根大学公共政策与经济学教授，谁和谁已经研究incentives reviewed弗赖尔的at时间的request study。如果激励设计明智，它出现时，支付的确可以提高孩子们的表现，接近或超过你听说过许多其他改革前 - 和一小部分的成本。钱是不够的。 （这绝不是。）但对有些孩子，可能是解决方案的一部分。最后，我们都希望我们的孩子成长为自我激励的成年人。问题是，我们如何帮助他们呢？而且是有可能，至少对于某些孩子，铺平道路，但没有贴有20元面额的？弗赖尔运行的教育创新实验室，拥有17名工作人员，以及约600万美元的年度预算。他的目标是用科学的方法找出如何关闭的学习差距美国的白人和少数族裔的孩子到2025年。当我访问他的实验室弗赖尔哈佛大学今年春天，他递给我一有一天议程，我自豪地介绍他的团队。在接下来的3个小时，因为我们谈论的实验中，弗赖尔是迷人和激烈，有时滑入经济学家发言，然后是一个“书呆子道歉。”但弗赖尔与孩子的生活和选择的不完全的学术魅力。他出身贫穷的得克萨斯州，在那里他与他的父亲，一台复印机推销员生活。当弗赖尔为16，他的父亲涉嫌性侵犯和弗赖尔曾将他保释出狱。同时，弗赖尔提出自己，而不是很好。他获得了在麦当劳工作，从收银机偷走。他出售大麻并进行了一段时间1 .357马格南图片社。但他在篮球场上激烈的足球场上的竞争力，而这也正是他表现出色，获得了篮球奖学金，在德州大学阿灵顿分校。在他大学的第一学期，弗赖尔采取了微积分课程。在他最初的考试，他取得了45 100。 “我的朋友开始叫我柯尔特45，”他回忆说。失败激怒他，他的骄傲踢进来：“我不希望像大家从我的邻居一样，”他说。弗赖尔开始在学校辛勤工作的第一次。他毕业于在两年半内与经济学学位。然后，他得到了他的博士学位宾夕法尼亚州立大学，在那里他开始用经济学的工具来研究不平等的问题。他在26岁加入了哈佛大学的教授，个案研究的动机权力转移。在哈佛，弗赖尔听说在纽约市学校，试图激励一个小规模的孩子。这个想法吸引了他，因为，不同的是教师或课程改革的重点，它对待孩子不是无生命的物体，而是人类的行为谁有趣的方式。但是他不知道它是否工作。2005年，他说服加文桑姆斯，哈佛大学的同事和朋友，同他一起去到纽约市来尝试注册一个试点方案的一些学校。 “我们不知道我们在做什么东西，”弗赖尔说。他们可能没有能力留在纽约，所以他们住在一个在菁酒店 - 在美国新泽西州的湿地严峻道。然后，他们驱车到球场周围的想法的校长。有一天，当他们参观一所学校，他们接到了学校系统的总部打电话，原先批准的项目。 “他们说，'你得走了，'”桑姆斯回忆。 “'你必须离开学校。 “傅兰雅抗议，但他输了。 “真是太政治化，”他说。 “这是一个选举年。他们已经得到了信说：'你不能支付孩子。 “
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的The early feedback was promising. Principals were lobbying to get their schools switched out of the control group and into the treatment group. Parents began using the paychecks as progress reports, contacting teachers to find out why their kids' checks had gone up or down. In Chicago, Duncan discovered that the program affected kids in ways he'd never expected. "I remember going to schools and seeing how excited the kids were when they got their checks. They were like pep rallies ― but around academic success!" he says. Fryer appeared on The Colbert Report and CNN to talk about the experiment, and that's about when the death threats started. All the while, Fryer refused to speculate about what the data would reveal. He was not all that interested in whether the kids raised their grades or turned in their homework. Grades are subjective. The more objective measure would come at the end of the year, when the students took their standardized tests. Would they improve more than the kids who were not getting paid? Or would they, as the psychologists predicted, actually do worse? "If it doesn't work, we're going to stop and start doing something else," says Washington schools chancellor Michelle Rhee. "But if it does work, it should drive where we put our money." (Watch Michelle Rhee talk about D.C. schools.)The results began to trickle into the lab last summer. In New York City, the $1.5 million paid to 8,320 kids for good test scores did not work ― at least not in any way that's easy to measure. In Chicago, under a different model, the kids who earned money for grades attended class more often and got better grades, two major accomplishments. Those students did not, however, do better on their standardized tests at the end of the year. In Washington, the kids did better on standardized reading tests. Getting paid on a routine basis for a series of small accomplishments, including attendance and behavior, seemed to lead to more learning for those kids. And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year ― and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped. The kids had much in common. In all four cities, a majority were African American or Hispanic and from low-income families. So why did the results vary so dramatically from city to city? One clue came out of the interviews Fryer's team conducted with students in New York City. The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn't seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. "No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher," Fryer says. "Not one."We tend to assume that kids (and adults) know how to achieve success. If they don't get there, it's for lack of effort ― or talent. Sometimes that's true. But a lot of the time, people are just flying blind. John List, an economist at the University of Chicago, has noticed the disconnect in his own education experiments. He explains the problem to me this way: "I could ask you to solve a third-order linear partial differential equation," he says. "A what?" I ask. "A third-order linear partial differential equation," he says. "I could offer you a million dollars to solve it. And you can't do it." (He's right. I can't.) For some kids, doing better on a geometry test is like solving a third-order linear partial differential equation, no matter the incentive. Similarly, in Chicago, kids were paid for grades ― a result they could not always control. There, the findings were mixed. Kids who got paid did indeed get better grades, and they also attended class more ― a week and a half more over the school year. That is a big deal, since nearly half of Chicago's high school kids drop out before they graduate and the kids who skip school and fail courses as freshmen tend to be the ones who drop out. We won't know until 2012 if the experiment lowered the dropout rate, but we do know that the rewards did not raise standardized-test scores. So what happens if we pay kids to do tasks they know how to do? In Dallas, paying kids to read books ― something almost all of them can do ― made a big difference. In fact, the experiment had as big or bigger an effect on learning as many other reforms that have been tested, like lowering class size or enrolling kids in Head Start early-education programs (both of which cost thousands of dollars more per student). And the experiment also boosted kids' grades. "If you pay a kid to read books, their grades go up higher than if you actually pay a kid for grades, like we did in Chicago," Fryer says. "Isn't that cool?" It may also help that the kids in Dallas were the youngest in the experiment, making them more receptive to reforms. It's hard to know for sure. Another caveat is that the Dallas model worked differently on different kids. Most (including Hispanic kids and poor kids) did better when they were being paid. But the ones who spoke very little English and took their standardized tests in Spanish did not benefit from the incentives, a mystery that Fryer addresses at some length in his study but cannot entirely explain. (See pictures of Detroit schoolkids sharing their dreams for the future.)Meanwhile, in Washington, each school got to choose three of the payment metrics, and some of the elements ended up being outcomes like test scores. But the students were also paid on the basis of attendance and behavior ― two actions that are under their direct control. Under this hybrid model, the kids who got paid did better on their standardized reading tests. Because of the small size of the school system, the Washington sample was less well balanced than those in the other cities. But its results contain one remarkable finding: the kids who were helped the most by the experiment were the ones who are normally among the hardest to reach. "The typical reform helps girls more than it helps boys," Fryer says. "[This] is the opposite. In D.C., all the results are being driven by the boys. That's fascinating."
评论
24小时新浪微博上找俺、悄俺、互粉http://weibo.com/u/2756378825?wvr=3.6&lf=reg回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的When I talked with Washington students, teachers and principals about the experiment, they appeared to have very low expectations for its long-term impact. Many of them, speaking from experience, seemed to think that nothing as simple as money could reach a certain hard core of kids. "The children we had challenges with before, we still have challenges with," says Vealetta Moore-Parker, a guidance counselor who runs the incentives program at Burroughs Education Campus. Nevertheless, according to Fryer's results, kids with a history of serious behavioral problems saw the biggest gains in test scores overall. Their reading scores shot up 0.4 standard deviations, which is roughly the equivalent of five additional months of schooling. Kids may respond better to rewards for specific actions because there is less risk of failure. They can control their attendance; they cannot necessarily control their test scores. The key, then, may be to teach kids to control more overall ― to encourage them to act as if they can indeed control everything, and reward that effort above and beyond the actual outcome. The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), one of the most successful charter-school networks in the U.S., has been doling out financial incentives for 15 years, using a model that happens to align perfectly with the results of Fryer's study. KIPP students get paid for actions they can control ― getting to school on time, participating in class and having a positive attitude ― with "money" they can redeem for supplies at the school store. Over the years, KIPP leaders, who now run 82 schools nationwide, have learned a lot about which rewards work and which do not. They have found that speed matters, for example. Recognition, like punishment, works best if it happens quickly. So KIPP schools pay their kids every week. (Interestingly, the two places Fryer's experiment worked best were the ones where kids got feedback fast ― through biweekly paychecks in Washington and through passing computerized quizzes in Dallas.) Just like grownups, kids need different kinds of incentives to get through the day, some highbrow and some low, some short-term, some longer-term. And money and other external rewards can be a gateway to more substantive motivators. KIPP fifth-graders get a lot of prizes like pencils; high school kids can earn freedoms ― like the privilege of listening to their iPods at lunch. "Our ultimate goal is to get kids to be intrinsically motivated," says Joshua Zoia, who founded the KIPP Academy in Lynn, Mass. "But we have to get kids hooked in. We have to meet them where they are."When Fryer briefed Rhee, the Washington schools chancellor, about the results, she was shocked ― happily so. "It is just so hard to show impact in education," Rhee says, citing past experiments that showed no payoff despite enormous effort. "We don't see results like this for a lot of other things we're doing," she says. So she went to the Washington city council to ask for more money to keep paying kids ― and to keep studying what happens. "If next year's data show something different, so be it," Rhee says. "We'll take it year by year." The program has wound down in Chicago, Dallas and New York City, although schools in all three places continue to experiment with incentives. Fryer believes there's more good research to be done on incentives. But he doesn't think incentives alone can fix our schools; he is increasingly convinced that the answer will involve a combination of reforms and that the interaction among those reforms will matter more than any single change in isolation. And whatever we do, he says, we have to test it first ― and fearlessly. "One thing we cannot do is, we cannot restrict ourselves to a set of solutions that make adults comfortable."Chyna is an eighth-grader at the Takoma Education Campus in Washington. Chyna likes to refer to herself in the third person, and when you ask her a personal question, she looks you dead in the eye, asks, "Honestly?" and waits for you to reply before giving you her answer. Chyna wants to be a lawyer or a radio personality when she grows up. But last year she had a hard time. She and a friend got into a fight with another girl at school. "We basically jumped her," Chyna admits. The police came, and Chyna found herself in a juvenile-detention center, waiting for her mom to pick her up. This year is going better. When I meet her, she has just received her regular paycheck. She earned $95, her highest check yet. She squeals with happiness and hugs her girlfriends. When I ask her how she did it, she says, "I tried my hardest." She adds, "I tried to wear my uniform, because I knew I wanted some money because my birthday is next week." She has saved her past four paychecks for this reason. The money, she says, gives her just enough incentive to hold her tongue. "For the most part, I'm still Chyna," she says. "But once in a while I just snatch it back, 'cause I know that paycheck is coming." Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589-4,00.html#ixzz0lEnS7H8u
评论
24小时新浪微博上找俺、悄俺、互粉http://weibo.com/u/2756378825?wvr=3.6&lf=reg回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的中间有个图表网站上没有，转述如下： 在德克萨斯州的DALLAS。对来自22所学校的1780名学生的调查显示：二年级的学生每阅读一本书并且完成书后的问答题可以得到2美金；平均每个学生每年可以为此赚取13.81美金，相当于每年读了7本书，其积极的意义在于学生提高自身的阅读水平。 在芝加哥对来自20所学校的4396名学生调查显示：九年级的学生考试成绩得A可以赚取50美金，B：35美金，C：20美金。每年学生平均为此可以得到695.62美金，其结果使得学生很少逃课，考试成绩有所提高。
评论
24小时新浪微博上找俺、悄俺、互粉http://weibo.com/u/2756378825?wvr=3.6&lf=reg回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的结果印证了我的判断， 1.钱管用，2. 目标必须是可达到的， 过程可监控， 我的儿喜欢一种唐人街的酸奶， 念十分钟书能喝一瓶， 我们俩管这个饮料叫work,
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的蜜儿爸怎么才知道资本主义钱的作用？--惊讶中。它们是明目张胆向钱看，但有自己的“道”。我们传统的儒家是君子莫谈钱，发展到今天是赤裸裸佬钱，早没有道了。
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的蜜爸既然看过，就总结一下吧，那么长，看着怪累的
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的结果印证了我的判断， 1.钱管用，2. 目标必须是可达到的， 过程可监控， 我的儿喜欢一种唐人街的酸奶， 念十分钟书能喝一瓶， 我们俩管这个饮料叫work,点击展开...我家的WORK是电脑游戏。念3页中文书玩30分钟电脑游戏，我们俩都高兴，WIN-WIN SITUATION
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的学习最好的孩子都能自己发现学习好的社会优势。现在好好学习，为将来投资。下下策才是用钱bribe.
评论
家里恶狗的成长日记和Product Review学习最好的孩子都能自己发现学习好的社会优势。现在好好学习，为将来投资。下下策才是用钱bribe.点击展开...小孩哪看得见呀什么社会优势呀，现在生活又优越，谁不爱偷懒呢
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的小孩哪看得见呀什么社会优势呀，现在生活又优越，谁不爱偷懒呢点击展开...在加拿大的教育系统中，孩子一直到初中高中才看清都不迟。我就是上了初中才明白学习好的重要性的。家长就该提前让孩子学会理财，了解钱的购买力，发觉自己的梦想，好让他们有动力去追求这些梦想。
评论
家里恶狗的成长日记和Product Review在加拿大的教育系统中，孩子一直到初中高中才看清都不迟。我就是上了初中才明白学习好的重要性的。家长就该提前让孩子学会理财，了解钱的购买力，发觉自己的梦想，好让他们有动力去追求这些梦想。点击展开...说说你的经历？
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的说说你的经历？点击展开...6年级的老师天天说他的股票升值了，他买了这个买了那个，然后天天强调我们将来会失业，会日子没有他过得好。同时参加了这个老师办的investment club，浅浅的看了看股票，享受到了portfolio上升，排名上升的乐趣。 同时初中开始所有学习好的同学的名字会在honor roll上面，不上Honor roll很没面子。哈哈~
评论
家里恶狗的成长日记和Product Review我家的WORK是电脑游戏。念3页中文书玩30分钟电脑游戏，我们俩都高兴，WIN-WIN SITUATION点击展开...这个也符合试验的结论， 利益必须是眼前的， 今天晚上洗碗比二十年后的豪宅还有价值，
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的这个也符合试验的结论， 利益必须是眼前的， 今天晚上洗碗比二十年后的豪宅还有价值，点击展开...觉得父母的责任就是在儿女没有意识到20年后的豪宅价值的时候培养delayed gratification.并且帮助儿女树立目标，从短期的目标开始，朝长期目标发展。
评论
家里恶狗的成长日记和Product Review觉得父母的责任就是在儿女没有意识到20年后的豪宅价值的时候培养delayed gratification.并且帮助儿女树立目标，从短期的目标开始，朝长期目标发展。点击展开...可是他们如果已经住着豪宅呢？另外他们对honor roll 没兴趣，光想非主流呢？
评论
回复: 从时代周刊本期的一篇文章看美国人怎样求孩子好好学习的可是他们如果已经住着豪宅呢？另外他们对honor roll 没兴趣，光想非主流呢？点击展开...已经住着豪宅的孩子跟梦想住豪宅的孩子不同。 如果家里有钱到他不努力也能衣食无忧一辈子，躺在家族资产里舒服的过日子，那么传统的奋斗对他也没什么用途啊。毕竟人的最低追求是温饱。有些人达到温饱了就满足了，有些人希望有更多。不同的欲望和个人能力产生了社会里不同层次的人群。更何况这个孩子基本的温饱根本不成问题，还能用最少的努力获得别人一辈子都可能得不到的社会和工作地位，所以他对自己所付出的努力是有很大的flexibility的。如果他想名垂青史，做个社会名人，and have accomplishments，那么他还是要努力地。大部分人和这些孩子的战场不一样，所以动力也不一样。 至于家里生活好，但是不能保障将来就业和人生的孩子（普罗大众），父母应该早早的就树立好的理财观点。比如说，不能孩子要什么玩具就给买什么玩具，要在家里做家务或者赞零用钱，或者除外打工自己买才可以。这样培养delayed gratification又培养独立思考和生活的能力。同时让他们意识到钱的用处和用自己的钱买东西的快乐。我第一次打工拿工资的时候出去买了一件衣服，比任何一次和父母出去买东西都开心。这边5年级的孩子都可以送报纸了，这些习惯都是可以从小培养的。
评论
家里恶狗的成长日记和Product Review6年级的老师天天说他的股票升值了，他买了这个买了那个，然后天天强调我们将来会失业，会日子没有他过得好。同时参加了这个老师办的investment club，浅浅的看了看股票，享受到了portfolio上升，排名上升的乐趣。 同时初中开始所有学习好的同学的名字会在honor roll上面，不上Honor roll很没面子。哈哈~点击展开...发现钱的购买力=发觉自己的梦想？别把好好的孩子培养成财迷了建议去看看巴菲特怎么教育他儿子的
·新西兰新闻 基督城发生“可疑接近儿童”事件 一男子引诱儿童上车
·新西兰新闻 北地海滩8天内三人死亡 当地大部分海岸线无人巡逻