Read this recent article from Time Magazine and respond. Should kids be bribed with money to succeed in school? I know that this one is a bit hard to swallow, but if it works, why not? Should it even be considered as an option? Let me know what you think.
36 comments:
The only way I would have read all four pages of that article is if I was paid...
But really, paying kids to do well in school is an absurd idea that could lead to such adverse side effects as greed and law suits claiming particular groups or individual students to have been "targeted."
Moreover, any monetary incentive would have to be intangible until graduation from high school when it could be used to pay tuition or other incidental college fees. In that case, some paperwork and reporting (and of course some cheating) on educator's parts would definitely ensue and we'd be just as corrupt and dumbed-down as we are now with NCLB. We'd likely have lower standards for curriculum to ensure students do well in order to secure funds for higher/ post-secondary education.
Not all children are made to be students just like not all adults are made to have big-ticket careers. Our country survives on its middle class and trying to force all students to excel would be similar to trying to pay everyone the same wage for different jobs... it's not fair, it won't work, not everyone is equal (except where rights are concerned) and we honestly don't have the money.
It would suck.
I found Dr Fryer's conclusions to be very accurate and to make perfect sense. While paying students money for something they should be wanting to do already seems somehow immoral, as Chyna so eloquently puts it "we're kids, let's be realistic."
There certainly are some problems with the idea. As the article points out paying someone to try to do something they don't know how to do won't work because no matter how big the incentive they just might not be able to do it. In fact the inability to rach the reward seems to me to be even more discouraging. This happens when the money incentives focus on test scores which directly measure learning.
Instead the idea of using cash and other incentives to boost learning needs to focus on the source. Rewarding kids for attending classes is one simple way to accomplish this. Kids will certainly be less apt to skip if there is a monetary reward for attending school. This already adds more class time and boosts learning.
Money doesn't even necessarily have to come into play, as we have seen in our own school attendance dramatically increased and tardiness decreased after exemptions from finals were awarded to those who only had a certain number of absences. This same idea also extended to passing the TAKS tests to receive exemptions from that subject, an idea which was met with dramatic results from underclassmen who suddenly had a good reason to care about TAKS. Other programs have already been used to great effect on me in my own educational career. When I was attending Lake Olympia Middle School there was a program called accelerated reading. This program required students to read books so that they could take electronic tests on them to earn AR points which could be redeemed for prizes at the end of the year. I know that I read faaaar more books during those three years than I would have without that program, I got into John Grisham novels, and at one point considered reading War and Peace just because i could have gotten over 100 points from passing the test.
Other incentives have not yet been tapped. The example of students being allowed to listen to iPods during lunch could easily be linked to the overall number of write-ups issued for the school. Instead of rewarding cash for good test scores, good behavior and attendance should be awarded to encourage a better reading environment. Students will care a lot more about a threat from a teacher to be written up if their is money at stake. Finally I think that a monetary reward system would be most effective on younger students (not to mention cheaper since kids appreciate money a lot more), and rewards in the form of privileges should be given to older students (being always looking for more freedom and independence). I think that if used correctly a rewards system for students could greatly improve the learning environment and consequently test scores and actual learning.
In a perfect world, students would be self-motivated to learn on their own, without any incentives, other than that they want to better themselves and be more knowledgeable about the world around them. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and kids need something that will reward them for their work. Though it may not be considered a bribe, many students work hard so that they can get scholarships for college. In effect, the incentive program works, though the way students are rewarded is an important factor.
I think that if parents or administrators have enough funding to do so, then sure why shouldn't the kids be paid to do well in school. Being a student is a job within itself and should be compensated for doing well. We go to school to get a decent job and to make money. In the work force money is used as an incentive for people to do work, so there shouldn't be a difference for students. Rewarding students for a good job is not unethical.
Leslie right I only got to the bottom of page two, but still, interesting article.
First, paying kids doesn't truly incentivize them to learn but rather turns kids to grade oriented machines. Education and learning has to do with one's passion in a subject, and thus adding a greater bottom line (money in the wallet in addition to knowledge) shouldn't change the pursuit of knowledge. The only way money could actually benefit a child's academic interests is if the money created an environment of new atmosphere for the student to gain motivation. Thus money should be funneled through the schools for classroom improvement where it can serve the masses, instead of an individual child's pocket.
Second, the system is infinitely regressive. Pretend we have a very intelligent dog who lives with a family who have a toddler that crawls around on the floor. The father, very angry at the dog decides to incentivize the god by offering him a treat if he uses the restroom outside. The dog decides to use the restroom outside for the first couple of times, gets his treat and is happy. Then he realizes that there is an easier way, clean up his poop and put it outside. The toddler still crawls around on the floor, covered in bacteria, the dog gets his treat at very little effort. In the same way, if students are incentivized, they will only be encouraged to meet the ends, in this case grades. All one would have to do is cheat until that get that crisp green Hamilton.
Motivation for education must in intrinsic, rather than extrinsic incentives, thus we should not give children money to achieve grades in school.
PS Who is paying for this? Doesn't anyone realize were in a bit of a budget snafu?
PPS LOL MARIJUANA ECONOMIST
Three comments:
1, I do not believe in giving out incentives to students for the sake of getting good grades. There should be some kind of motivation for these children to perform well - but money is definitely not the one. If Mr. Fryer paid the second graders in Dallas now, what would he have to pay them when they get to 12th grade? He can not just stop giving incentives all of a sudden. That would result in some really negative events.
2, If children were given incentives before, like in New York, the results would lower than what was already before. Money is not a prize or a trophy. It is a medium of exchange. You don't want children to exchange good grades for money... Well, one could argue that statement. But my point is, if we are running a race, although we would see the gold medal as our goal, we do not put a condition with our coach that if we could win the race, we would get the medal(that sounds quite absurd.) The students should find an ultimate final destination of their victory, in the long-run, something like their good futures, rather than money.But then again, for them future is not worth the shot.
3, The report says that the schools were improved by 0.4 standardixed point due to the "incentives", which would equal to the efforts of five months in school. Ha! FIVE MONTHS!!!
'Nuff said. (sarcasm hand raised :))
-Rosemaria Varghese
Period 7
One more comment:
About incentives and reading books:My brother, who is currently in 6th grades in LOMS, reads a lot of books. In my house, the incentive system is that if he does not read at least 25 books a week, he could miss every single episode of Pokemon for the next month !!! :)
Let Mr. Fryer try that for once.
I believe the incentive to work hard in school is so you don't end up being a thug stealing from people or working at Best Buy on 59. I think if a kid doesn't want to go to school, some cash won't help- after all, the drug ring pays better I've heard. So this is a bad idea, and of yeah... this will be very expensive.
I don't think this is a bad idea. What students' are supposed to do is to learn about life, and competition is a part of life that is really important. But yes its a truth that the incentive to study would be gone if the kids aren't paid anymore. So its better not to pay kids with cash, but maybe with medals or prizes. Cash is something that's like fire. It can be helpful and can also burn you to death
There are a couple views to this.
What is the point of education in today's world? The correct answer is money. Better education means better job means better paycheck. So, this incentive is just a look to the future for these kids about how the real world works. In a world that revolves around money, you might as well teach these kids how to deal with money and sit their butts in a chair and pay attention.
On the other hand, I truly believe this is ridiculous. The part that stuck out to me is the second graders being paid to read more! Second graders should not be worrying about money!! Money is the root of all evil. Why should we drag innocent children into that? If they don't want to learn, then let them not learn. Learning is learning for yourself. What ever happened to punishment rather than incentive? In the long run, the effects are much better. On top of that, not all people are meant for college. And acting like they are is living a lie.
So we shouldn't bribe kids to stay in school and bring down the standards of the true students who want to be there.
p.s. There isn't enough money in the school system to economically do this. It could run a district into the ground. And make them have to cut necessary positions and beloved teachers just so they can say it works and they aren't wrong.
Going to school can be classified as a job. We are full time students. Therefore, being paid isn't a bad idea. However, it could wind up being very expensive. Thus, it isn't likely to happen, but it would be a good incentive for children to do well in school if they had an extra reward. It would also set kids up to succeed in the future because they will have a solid education. On the other hand, if they did end up doing this, they would need to increase the level of curriculum and make it more challenging to cause students to work harder, and not just give them money for doing nothing. However, there would never be enough money to do this for everyone, and students are actually blessed that they have the opportunity to gain an education.
i think that kids should not be paid to go to school, i mean, i wasn't. so why should they? sure, it would give them incentive to do better, but so should getting paid by colleges in scholarships. that was enough for me. just adding the extra incentive could effectively work, but it would take that much more out of the money supply and cause a bigger ruckus. finally, it's not as if kids are paying for school anyways, if they were, then this would be a totally different dilemma, but since they're not, there shouldn't be something that unbalances the equilibrium of this. after all, there is no "free lunch".
I think that kids being paid to do well in school is ridiculous. Being a student can sometimes seem like a full time job, but being paid to succeed is ridiculous. A person should not choose a job based on the money they will earn, they should have other motivation to succeed in life. For students, it should be the same way. A student should actually want to learn or at least succeed in school. Because not all students are self-motivated, it can be difficult to get students to succeed in school. Incentives could be helpful, but paying students is definitely ridiculous. Also, it would be extremely expensive.
Bribing a kid to going to school and doing well is stupid. It should either be "do well in school or something bad is gonna happen". Should a child be rewarded for doing exceptionally well, especially on their own initiative? Hell yes! People always appreciate hard work from someone. But to have to bribe a child with money, which should only be given as a reward for doing something that they didn't really need to do, instills the notion that kids will be rewarded for every little thing they do no matter how insignificant. If something's going to help you out in the long run, the kid should spend those growing up years finding out that things that help out in the long run don't need instant reward for the reason. The only reason I would ever reward my child for something is if he was a B-student while trying but then put out all of his effort and became an A student just out of sheer grit and sweat, then yes, I would reward him for that effort. Not that I think that paying a kid to go to school is a good idea, but if it's to be done, then it would have to have some kind of grade to get the money, not just showing up to school and zombieing out.
I think the idea of paying students to do well in school has its benefits and pitfalls, like shown in the study. As one of the students pointed out, most kids are not driven by the "love of learning" but I don't think we should fix that with money. If started at too young of a age, kids will expect to be paid for everything. Education is (fortunately) a right in this country and it should be viewed as a blessing. Other countries force families to pay for their children's education and provide no public education. I do think though that other incentives can work-rewards other than money. Besides, I don't see how every district can get the funding to pay thier students (we barely have enough as it is!) Offering payment for students could also encourage families to move to certain districts that pay, which could result in overcrowding and other problems.
Its ridiculous trying to pay for students success. Students should not get payed for grades. Students should only get paid for school if they promise to buy books and tutors with that money. However the test that those people have done is good for record keeping. its a good test to show how people react to the incentives they receive. however if this idea was to spread through out the nation that would equal a lot of money given away, honestly i dont think the government can afford to make that main stream. If kids dont want to learn they shouldn't, they should just be put into a class with other people who dont want to learn. this idea of money is good for people smarter people but it might suffer the others. it wouldnt be fair to the mass. but what will happen when the kids go to college they wont have the same incentive as they did in highschool, i dont think they will preform as well if they dont go thru the normal highschool career.
Like every person has been able to notice, paying students is expensive! Not only can it lead to moral issues but a dramatic change in the economic structure of our society. Ignoring these obvious details, there are other things to be said about how money makes students do better in school.
The main goal in improving education is to get students motivated to excel themselves to their full potential. Depending on where you go to school will affect how much you try to learn. But even those students like myself who work hard in every subject still have their complaints of school.
As much as some teachers annoy me or the amount of homework that I receive overflows, I dislike some classes more than others. Why do they make us take so many necessary credits? For us, we only needed 3 math and science classes till they changed it to 4, but some colleges only require 3 classes of english or social studies. If people are to get better at what they will major in doesn't it make sense that they should have time to study it?
I hate the teachers who tell you that you will need to know this for the rest of your life when that is not true for everybody. Every night, I have to spend hours on my tougher subjects when I could be involved in more interesting ones. I think that if the schools gave more variety to the students' choice of classes that they will do better because they enjoy studying it, not just making a passing grade.
Although the idea seems like it would help kids become more motivated, a lot of unintended consequences would result.
First, the moral implications of this would be disasterous. Instead of wanting to do well and learn, school would become all about money, kids would cheat more than they already do. People are already greedy enough. It would esentially be teaching kids that money is most important. Children would only care about the grade, not about learning and becoming a better person. Knowledge is just as or more important in life. Plus, what are first graders going to do with all this money? This would corrupt innocent children.
Next, where are school dstricts going to get all this money? Also, how would a system be ensured so that the money would be distributed fairly? WHat if the same course is taught by the 2 teachers and one is easier than the other, then he "lucky" students would get more money for less work. Also, with all this money floating around, corruption within the adminstration of schools could be a problem as well.
This sounds like a great idea, but really would cuse more problems than it would solve. Americans are lucky they can get an education for free, they shouldn't take it for granted.
Okay, considering the pretty substantial differences in each of the 4 tests sites, most notably being the age of the kids as well as the way they were paid, I don't think that it was the best example of this sort of thing happening.
In my own life, I've been, yes, encouraged to get better grades with money. It used to be if I had all A's on a report card, I'd get 10 bucks (when 10 bucks could still buy you a movie ticket). It honestly did make me strive for better grades, but mostly it made me really work on my problem areas, Math and certain, usually Math-related, areas of Science. Now, in Senior year but starting in Junior year all A's meant something else: better GPA and better rank.
Don't these do the exact same thing? Aren't a higher GPA therefore a higher rank therefore the chance at a better college education therefore a possibly higher paying job all the same exact thing, bribery, just for older-students? Haven't we been taught, no matter how much TV and movies may have said otherwise, that money does, to some extent bring you happiness? Yeah, I'm not exactly completely advocating paying kids $100 bucks just to be in class and making good grades but can we really be as idealistic as saying that just a little something, maybe $10 bucks for all A's on a report card, is too much?
Also, asking us, generally well-off middle-high class citizens versus the low-income, generally inner-city youth that was being tested doesn't seem fair: we get money and we get money fairly regularly. Mommy and Daddy, for the most part, aren't exactly upset at giving us a little chump change to see the newest flicks every once-in-a-while. Now contrast that with living paycheck to paycheck and barely being able to afford the food on the table, I think that I too might turn to making whatever little money I could, if only so that my family could eat a little bit better.
Even I'm getting high and might at this point and as Chyna put it at the end of the article: They're kids. Let's be realistic.
I think that the results from kids getting paid to do well in school would vary significantly from case to case. First of all, in many instances, such bribery would lead to a future generation motivated solely by greed. While it seems likely that this could happen anyways, paying kids to receive the best education they can would strip them of their fundamental values and make an education seem worthless unless they are getting paid.
On the other hand, many people would benefit from such incentives. As long as a kid has a good head on his shoulders and maintains a proper mindset (that the payment is a reward and not a reason to learn), it can just add an extra amount of motivation to make kids try harder in school and learn as much as they possibly can.
In my opinion kids should not be bribed to do well in school. I was raised to work hard for me, not for anyone else or for a reward. My parents would praise and congratulate, but they never gave me money or any kind of incentive to do well. This taught me what is important in life and it is not material things and it is definitely not money. I believe that making good grades is something that should be done to achieve your own dreams and because you expect that from yourself, not for a reward.
When you create monetary compensation for academic work, you build more of an incentive for Cash than for actual learning. When kids are driven for more cash, I think they will soon realize that instead of spending an hour studying, an hour at work would be a better way to make money. Although so much of our world is based on obtaining financial sucess, school should be an environment of finding personal success, pushing your boundaries to grow as an individual. However, when the expansion of your wallet is in mind, a student will be distracted from academia's real goal: learning about yourself and how you fit in to the world around you. So, do we really want impressionable young people who are institutionally trained to believe that their lives are measured by dollars and cents?
Incentives in the classroom are useful and effecetive in getting students to make an effort. Mrs. Hanley motivates us to come to calculus everyday by promising a drop grade for perfect attendance. Throwing money into the incentive pool makes things more complicated. Practically speaking, if payment for grades or attendance are made each semester or nine weeks, the idea that money is most important may not be heavily reinforced onto students. But monthly or weekly payments most assuredly will instill or enhance greed in the student body, and school will become less about learning and more about getting that paycheck. Though it's true that we are full-time students, school cannot be accurately compared to a job because we can't be fired from school. Allow that possibility, and then paying students seems perfectly acceptable. But getting kids fired from school doesn't seem to be anyone's ultimate goal.
If there's money to be put into the school system, it should go toward improving learning environments in the classroom, updating technology, and finding other ways to inspire learning, like field trips.
With our education system in the pits, paying kids for goods grades might be the motivation necessary to get children to start taking school seriously.
While paying kids might bring up some ethical issues, I believe some people need to calm down and take a bigger look. Most children have some kind of incentive system with their parents for excellence in school, whether in cash or things the children desire. The only difference in this new system is that the government will be paying kids, not their parents.
Kids would most likely spend this money, benefiting the economy. I am also in favor of withholding the money till graduation, giving good students a head start on paying towards their college.
The standards for this system should be high, so students would not be rewarded for mediocrity.
This is an absolutley absurd idea. To even entertain this notion is offensive. The thought of paying kids for doing their homeowork while hundreds of teachers are getting pink slipped this year in California is a slap in the face to the teachers that are getting laid off and the teachers that are still working but getting paid relatively minimal salaries. Furthermore, instituting bribery will only condition the students to think that studying and getting an education is work, rather than feeling that becoming an educated, learned person is a reward in itself.
Money is good. No exceptions. If you are going to give me money, I am going to say yes. Just tell me what to do. This is the resounding answer from ALL teenagers asked the question. School sucks. No exceptions. If you are going to give me money for doing that something that sucks and I'm forced to dol I will say yes. This is the resounding answer from ALL teenagers.
What, then, is the problem with bribing kids's with money? Obviously, there are several problems. Where's the money coming from? Should we raise our kids to be motivated by money? Is that really how we want to raise our children, dependent and corrupted by money?
All valid complaints, but then again, every idea has flaws. The fact of the matter is, if you give teenagers money, they will spend it. This FACT could be used to the federal government to stimulate the economy in times of recession.
Kids are raised by their parents, not by any extrinsic motivators given to them by a government that is naturally distrusted. Sure, there will be some greed, but to assume that it is a direct result of the money given is fallacious: post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
Furthermore, bribing kids is an incentive to go to school. Even it is for money, there's no doubt that money= attendance. This would, att the very least, increase exposure to education. Furthermore, it is in the best interest of the govvernment to to increase the educational level of kids, the same kids who will grow up to work for the united states.
Bribing students as a form of motivation is a ridiculous misuse of funds. People will always do just enough to get by if they aren't already self-motivated. Paying kids money portrays despatation and would most likely end in wasted funding. Students are already faced with the possibility of scholarships for their acedemics, thus the bribing is excessive and useless. It ultimately falls to the parents to instill in their children pride in their work and responsibility.
Kathleen clark
period 7
period 7
Giving money to kids as an incentive to make better grades is a good idea, but it is not the answer.
The problems with giving money to children for making good grades was brought forth several times in the article. The cost was in the millions for just 18,000 kids, not even a fraction of all the kids in school, the test scores in most places didn't go up, or didn't stay up long, and it only worked in 1/4 of the places it was tested in. Moreover, in a previous test mentioned in the article, that once the reward is removed, the children tend to do worst. To pay these kids is just setting them up for failure in the long run really. It was even stated by Frankly himself that kids should learn because they want to, not because they're getting paid to. It was also stated that the reason this test didn't work in 3/4 of the testing areas was because the children didn't have good study skills and test taking strategies. Giving money to students to work harder is pointless if they don't know how to work harder.
The only thing this really proved is that kids need to be taught better test taking strategies and how to study correctly.
No, don’t pay children to do what they are supposed to do anyways. It is our job to attend school and learn. If you pay them for it, then they won’t assume any personal responsibility and will be expected to be paid no matter what for the rest of their natural life. Namely, even if they are unemployed, they will expect a check for “trying.” We already reward students with privileges and the unequal distribution of the rule of law. We ought to leave things as they are, and if anything, go the opposite way and charge stupid kids for wasting the materials of qualified educators. Pressure them not to do poorly; don’t incentivize them to do well. Furthermore, the prospect of handing the average teenager money frightens me; too many teens will succeed, only briefly, at school until such a point that they decide to make a poor decision, develop a drug habit funded by their “awesome” grades, and then cost society obscene amounts of money in a correctional facility.
This proposed method isn't absurd, it's just underdeveloped. There were great disparities among the results because the structures of the program within the schools differed significantly. One city rewarded its students for getting good grades without takikng into account that achieving good grades could simply be impossible for the students, no matter how you pay them. Consequently, there were no beneficial effects on standardized tests. However, other schools implemented cash incentives for actions its students could control, like their behavior and attendance, and as a result there was a positive effect on overall standardized test scores. Paying students could have advantageous outcomes. The problem is constructing a model that infallibly and effectively implements the use of money to motivate students to do better in school.
Of course this isn't the surefire way to rectify the motivation problems in school. The article even concedes that the proper solution will be a "combination of reforms." However, people should not dismiss this idea and "restrict [themselves] to a set of ideas that make them [comfortable]." The method has proved successful in some areas, and the reasons why they have proved successful have been isolated and identified, and thus there is merit to paying children to do better in class.
I think kids today have no motivation to do well in school what so ever. Today kids need all sorts of incentives to do well in school. I don't think administrators should pay kids, but if parents want to bribe their kids with money they are welcome to do so
As many people and the article have said, a monetary incentive would only galvanize cheating and short-term learning efforts. Also, there simply isn't the money in thousands of school districts (18 million debt lololol) to support such a wide-scale reward system.
A more viable system would perhaps be something similar to AR - Advanced Reader - system in many schools. Students are given points after doing well on (book) tests, points that they can redeem for such trinkets as CD players and radios and gift certificates at the end of the year. Points could be given out for percentage improvements or consistent performance (say maintaining 'B's gives you X points, maintaining 'A's gives you X+Y points, improving your grade average 20% over last nine weeks gives you Z points, etc.) and could be redeemed for some value.
Or as David mentioned, instead of purely financial or tangible awards, privileges could be handed out. Allowed to listen to iPods during lunch, elevator privileges, slight tardy privileges, things like that would go a long way toward encouraging better behavior and grades.
-Eric Yu
My parents paid me for a good report card, for a short while. Then as I got older, I received less money and more praise, until finally all I received was praise and my own feeling of accomplishment. The reason I pushed myself to do well in school, I think, is because I got such positive feedback from my parents when I did, and that in turn made me proud with myself. I think parents have a role to play in the academic performance and habits of their children. If a parent doesn't care, the child likely isn't going to care.
If such is the case with these students that are doing poorly, I think paying them works in the short run, but once the incentives stop, so will the good grades and the motivation to excel, which can prove detrimental in later life. Self-motivation reaches far beyond just achieving good marks: it's necessary for life. I think self-motivation must be taught and learned, not presented to students in the form of a cash voucher. Students must be taught that how they perform now affects their future, and money cheapens the experience of true effort and self-fulfillment. If payed, earning good grades essentially becomes their "job" when really, they ought to be earning those grades in order to actually HAVE a real job in the future!
I say ditch money incentives.
Even though I see the idea of paying students to succeed is completely unrealistic, hypothetically it seems to be a great idea. People want to believe that all students are self-motivated to do well in school and strive for success, however, the fact of the matter is that many students couldn't care less. Paying students to get good grades would turn schooling into an occupation. How well do you think everyday workers in real jobs would perform if they were rewarded with grades and gold stars instead of pay? But, as good as the plan may seem, there are way to many downfalls to even take it seriously. Maybe on an individual basis, as an agreement between parent and student, there is some success with rewarding success in school with money, but on a widespread scale, the plan would fail and may even leave kids worse off than they are now.
the idea is most definitely great in theory but the side effects might not be quite as great. though the idea of positive reinforcement would most definitely be efficient in getting sutdents to learn, they may develop a sense of overworthyness and will demand more. realistically, in the end, noone has enough "treats" to satisfy the child population of america
Hmmm... That is a hard one to say. Though I would love to be paid to do my work, it just wouldn't feel right. I mean, it shouldn't require a cash incentive to get children motivated to do their work. They should be motivated to gain the knowledge needed to survive out in the real world, and to live a decent daily life, seeing as how knowledge is a key necessity to life. I feel as though the incentives that schools already give (like parties and activities) are enough for children to work to the best of their ability. However, it could give the result that kids do better in school when they get paid and when their pay gets increased or decreased based on grades.
Post a Comment