I was thrown a curve going from remaking the species to the local school board. My mistake, but then the sterilization was another miscue I took for a remake of society.
<<with very little actual work, we could produce a world of happy, reasonable, hard-working, and obedient dogs. ... I prefer to think that all <snip> children are perfectly capable of becoming successful adults <snip> with positive reinforcement of their good actions and negative reinforcement (withholding of reward) of their bad actions, and an occasional pat on the head and a "good boy" or "good girl" and a bit of chocolate (not for dogs).>>
This is exactly the philosophy of the Progressive, Pragmatist Dewey and the American Public Schools. Granted the outcome is no as to be desired. Hardly, though, is that the fault of the philosophy, their's, yours, mine. Where the fault, or correction, lays is still being debated.
<<It would be very cheap.>> This has not been seen to be true.
<<The children who want to be science, sports, or computer champions we can allow to enter schools where they can be tutored and share the proceeds of their remarkable success with their tutors.>> You, yourself even, have the authority to set up such a school, now. Under the Charter Schools idea, the School Board would assist. Motivation, not authority, is lacking. It is not a far leap from even the older, more traditional, Exceptional Student Education, the Gifted of Special Ed.
But such tutor/student collaboration exists in the adult world now. Entraupenares get startup capital from investors. Investor trade equity for expansion capital. More specifically, partners trade their time and expertise for each other's toward the hope of something later. Even more mundane is the salaried employee who hired with the hope that he will make a big discovery; he is willing to trade years of security for making one big score for the company. So the idea of the tutor contingent pay [or equity in student?], instead of the teacher pay by the community/company has legitimate roots. The realistic problem with applying it to student/teacher is that few are marketable, with the rest too early to tell. A subset of students, like a gifted charter school might work, as mentioned. But overall students...Do you take Every investment that comes your way? The overall effect on education for the culture sounds intriguing only in a pipe dream way. A nice dream, indeed--have teachers have the 1st shot at equity of genius, rather than the CEO class.
There is something glittering at the bottom of the pool in this idea for me. It is the idea that each of those who have an effect on a person have their account credited [debited]. The tutor has an effect on the student, the tutor cashes in his student chip when the S's boat docks. But their are so many people who effected that S. Not neglectful is the genetic debt he owes to his forebearers. Then his parents, relatives, and caregivers had a say in his outcome. All the friends, acquaintences, passing strangers, and even the fortune cookie that made his first date. This is only the tip of the iceberg of those responsible for his making the big scholarship at MIT, and the invention of the decade later. I like the idea of there being a more immediate payment to each of those who contributed.
<<Everybody else can be given a multimedia computer and see what he or she can learn on their own. It should be equipped with an M&M dispenser.>>
Do you have children? You can't be talking about the young. Supervision of danger, of valuables. Attention span. Manipulatives. Learning by computer is often dismal because the programming is not there, or too expensive--unlike business applications. Hardly realistic as our society is now configured, and with the limitations of a computer.
Most importantly in your post is how I hear your teacher pay suggestion, however worthwhile, attending only to the elite. For the rest of us, there are humorous shaggy dog stories, dismissive of our needs whether we are underdeveloped countries, workers, or students. Improvement in this world would come greatest by raising the bottom, not squeezing out a bit more from the top. One recurring problem with doing this raising is that everything the bulk of humans get is leftovers from the elite. If computers had been designed for families and children, instead of being made by the intellectual top for the financial top, how would it differ? How would the impact on users and society differ? Such questions are seldom asked, let alone implemented. Elites serve only the elite. Great improvement will come only when leaders serve from among, not from ahead or behind. Public education and Unions are two of the best examples of raising from the bottom.
Tell me, please, Nihil, how to accomplish that. |
