Incentives matter.
How would you like to be paid cash to read a book, show up to school, or get good grades? Billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg thinks it is a great idea, if it is funded by the private sector. He is heavily influenced by the young and "influential iconoclastic rising star young anthropologist economist" at Harvard, Roland Fryer.
His American Inequality Lab website is here.
Interesting stuff, on several levels.
27 comments:
i remember overhearing a girl in my 8th grade history class brag that her dad had given her $20 because she had gotten a 95 on the last class quiz. i also remember being really pissed off. i went home that day and asked bonnie why she never paid me for good grades, i mean, i did it without even being told to.
exactly. without even being told to.
it's an interesting idea, but it would evolve into appeasement. parents shouldn't have to bargain with their kids to get good grades, neither should school administrators. and if the idea is introduced to children, especially to younger students, they will grow up with a sense of entitlement. that will be a huge mess once they enter high school and are demanding 10 cents/word on research papers.
self-motivation is important. this idea is certainly creative, but in the long run it would break the spirit that drives academia
Money is, in a war, already the incentive for many academics. Higher degree in most cases means a larger paycheck.
Even so, i feel like the money incentive completely undermines the whole theory of "knowlege for the sake of knowlege".
instead of saying "i want to learn this because it's interesting" kids will be tempted to say "i'm getting paid, so let me cram as much info into my head as i can". This is not a good system because it encourages the sort of binge-and-purge learning that dissapears once the test is over.
if the goal is education, money should not be the incentive.
i really don't think paying kids off to do their work is wise at all.
first of all, if nothing else, it opens up a whole new relm of bullying. it won't just be lunch money any more. and what are these kids going to buy with their money?
and how do you make sure that the kid actually did the work? cheatng would become a science and homework would become a nighmare situation as far as keeping tabs.
i think that if kids were to be paid for there good grades, it should go towards a college education. all money earned should go right to an untouchable bank account in the school's name that can only be accessed once the student goes to college to be used to pay tuition. that way the money that was earned through education would proceed to pay for a further education. any money not used by students who don't go on to college could be put into a schoarship fund.
In 'Naked Economics' Whalen talks about college being an investment. (unless this is Armchair Economics. I don't suggest reading to books about economics at the same time) Why shouldn't all school be an investment? From the student, not the government. You attend school because you want to get a good job and earn a lot of money. There are only a few people who don't have to earn their money, and usually it is because their parents/relatives did. But, it's humanity, of course there are exceptions.
It is important to instill a good work ethic in kids at an early age, but not through the use of money incentives. It does cheapen the general experience of learning. And, like the kid who knocks out other kid's teeth in sitcoms for money from the Tooth Fairy, so will students find ways to cheat to get more money. And what of those who are not good test takers, or are visual learners? Some children, although bright, do not do well in the system. Will the government then tailor a course for each individual student so that each student has an equal oppurtunity to earn for their smarts? There are too many holes for this to be successful.
i believe this is a terrible idea. paying children to read and study. what are they thinking?
children are suposse to be learning the concept of responsibility. there should be a feeling of joy, excitement, and relaxation when reading a book. if a child is being paid to read a book for school, the story line will go in one ear and out the other because they were more focused on getting the money and not the book.
When the student enters college , he's not going to get payed to do his papers or study for a test.
this idea is going to go down the drain....i hope
to pay students for their school work would indeed cause much controversy. but to a lower extent is that not the point of a scholarship?
Define: Scholarship-a sum of money or other aid granted to a student, because of merit, need, etc., to pursue his or her studies
ofcourse a scholarship is put strictly to college funding. but the point of college is to train students to be ready and capable of their careers. once their career is in fact started, surely they should be making money.
even students who do not choose to go to college can still be expected to make a living on their own. high school is merely a catalyst for career building. from the skills learned in school, comes the reward of cash.-if your education helps to get you your job, doesn't your education help you to get your money
In the short run, this practice will most likely improve test scores. The students who don't care about reaching their full potential and studying as much as possible, will get a new motivation to strive for higher grades.
However, in the long run, this won't bring any good. Unless they plan on continuing paying the students throughout their college careers, the students are going to find themselves in a college situation with no motivation to pick up their books and study.
Paying kids to do well in class is not such a bad idea. Many kids who were not raised to work hard in class, either from poor or un-authoritarian parents, do not understand what an education can bring them. Student from elementary school to high school might not comprehend the importance of college at the time but after graduating from high school kids will wonder what to do next. Sooner or later they will realize how college can open their horizons to a job that pays and makes them happy. With extra cash from doing well in school, students can use it to fund for college.
I know parents also have an obligation pound in the meaning of education, but parents who don’t have money might not encourage there kid to go to college. Instead, some parents would rather have a quick low income rather than paying for a high risk that may bring success for there child in the long run. But with the money from school, parents will more likely send their kids to college.
I really don't think this is a good idea. If you pay kids to get good scores on test some kids will only think about the money and not about doing good on test. So instead of actually studying they will just cheat and get payed for it. Which setup a bad example for what they would do in the future. It's unfair for the kids who actually did study.
This could be bad for the economy. Teenager won't get jobs after school hours because they are get payed to getting payed for their grades. So you lose part of your work force.
Who wouldn't want to be paid to learn and do well on tests? I know I for one would. Although I would like to be paid to do well on my tests this idea just isn't realistic. If kids are paid at an early age to do well in school, they will expect this all throughout life. As these children grow up they will expect to recieve money for everything they do that is considered good or beneficial to themselves. At an early age children should be taught to want to learn because of the love of learning, not because they are given a reward.
if students shouldn't have incentives to do their work or get high scores, then maybe they shouldn't be punished for poor grades or not doing their work.
few students work extremely hard just for the sake of learning. they are usually either pressured by their parents or motivated by what their school success may bring. kids in poorer families do not have these incentives, do not get a good education, and wind up just as poor as the parents.
this plan is designed to give poorer kids a chance at success later in life. its worth a try.
Paying kids to do well in school is not my idea of success, $2 to read a book and $25 for perfect attendance, thats just stupid. Its not a job, you shouldt get paid based on how well you do. Yes, maybe it would be a good idea to give funds to poorer families who cant afford to send their children to school and pay for medical, but because a student does well theres no reason to pay him or her for it. In the first place its not like your attending a private school where your paying high sums of money to attend, in which case the better you do maybe the more money they take off your tuition, but for a public school the case is totally different. Children should not be getting paid to do well in school, the reward is self satisfaction and getting into a good college, and in return you will get a good job with a high paying salary.
As a kid who loves money, I think schools should give this project a shot. The idea of learning by itself just does not appeal to many students. Implementing a program that will pay students to go to school and to excell with their work is worth a shot. I mean, we might as well give this a try; nothing else seems to be working at the moment.
As I look through the bloggs of my classmates, I am a little surprised to see that some of them do not like this idea. Most of the kids who disagree are those who would be raking in the money. I'm sure many of you might call this new plan unethical; why should students get paid to do something that they should already be doing for free? But who really cares if this is ethical or not? The government is basically giving away free money!
The question is not whether this idea should be introduced into our school systems, but rather why wasn't it installed sooner?
paying children to do well in school is corrupt, among many other things. by doing this, kids are getting good grades for all the wrong reasons. kids should want to do well in school to better their education- not add a little weight to their piggy banks.
and another thing- if parents pay their children to do well in school, where do the incentives end? and, if they do in fact end,the children are going to be extremely mislead and disappointed when there isn't a cash incentive to do well in other areas of life. personally, i think that this idea needs to be 'nipped in the butt' before the kids with the empty piggy banks catch on to the madness
I think paying students to achieve good grades could in fact be a good idea. As children, some of us were rewarded allowance for good behavior and for doing chores. This could work in the educational system because people have motivation. Paying students to do well in school could benefit the poor by giving students that succeed in school the money they deserve, and it will improve grades overall. I think it is an idea that could work, though it is not very realistic.
Giving kids money for doing well in school would change their way of learning. no longer would kids be reading for the pleasure of reading, they would be doing it for money. and who knows if these kids are actually 'reading' these books they are told to read. just like kids do now, money is not going to stop them from using spark notes.
as well as creating more competition to the classroom, wouldnt this be another way of discriminating children? some kids, now matter how much they study, are just not as smart as others. already kids get picked on for being dumb, now this will allow them to be dumb and poor.
overall i think this plan would just be another corruption to the classroom.
if kids need to be payed to do good in school they shouldn't be in school at all. It will only help them through out highschool. Once they are you in the real world its not going to benifit them at all. I think you need to do well in school to gain the knowledge to succeed in life.
Paying kids to do get good grades in school is just like giving a child candy for behaving well. Its good for some time but then the only reason they will behave is for candy they aren't getting well educated. for high shool students its the same thing.... they will get good grades thats all they will care about the grades not about the knowledge they gain. i personally think that grades aren't everything you should care about.
Also the students need to do things for themselves...be independent, they are never always going to have someone there by their side rewarding them for what they do. In the end they are the ones who decide what kind of future they will have... if they choose to succeed or fail it will be their own fault no one elses.
As a noted economist known for his studies in the black-white test gap, I feel Roland Fryer should know better. The reason we go to school is to learn, and we learn so we can succeed. Performance on a standardized test may be an indicator of future success, but when scores are bought, the student is not encouraged to succeed for love of anything other than money (Which I see some students love more than is good for them). Students need to be shown that they are in school for a reason, and that reason should not be to perform well on standardized tests. Rote memorization of facts in order to perform well does not do the student any good, when in the real world, he or she must think and create.
And if this system was put into place, it could turn out so extreme that Mr. Fryer would discover the problems he ahs fought so long to solve are being exacerbated. If students, take Mr. de-Vries Wallace for example, want the money, they will do anything to get it. Why not go out and get a private tutor so he can do even better and get even more money? But not every student will have this option. Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds will not be able to hire tutors and as Mr. de-Vries raises the standard they will no longer be able to get the money. Thus this system helps the rich get richer while the poor arent helped at...which means the status quo will continue. Students from poor backgrounds will continue not to get the grades that they can achieve, while the richer students will continue to succeed because of the family they were born into.
And you have to ask yourself...What else could we do with this money that would be better than paying students for grades?
The idea of paying someone for excellent grades is appealing will be appealing to many students. Why i'd love to be paid to get above a 90 on a standardized test. However it will make students rely on compensation such as reciving candy for getting the highest grade. Also, if you are going to pay students for above avergage grades, it will be unfair for the students who are poor and have or havent had any genuine learning from schools. If we were to give bonds or scholarships to students for good grades it would be better than giving money for them to use on items that arent necessary.
Although giving students monetary incentives to do well in school does seem a little unethical, I think it will ultimately pay off for the economy. There are already incentives for kids to do well in school anyway-if you do well in school, you'll get a good job, make tons of money, and provide a good life for you and your family. Sometimes though that is too far off for some kids to see. Some people need instant gratification. Giving kids money in return for good grades and attendance is a great way to motivate kids who aren't already and for who the far off future that may or may not be great is not good enough incentive.
It is also good practice for the real world where in most careers the harder you work the more you will get paid. Also, if we motivate students like this early on, they should in turn become smarter because of it and therefore do great things for our economy in the long run- invent new things, aid global problems etc.
Plus- on many applications we fill in "Occupation" as "Student". So this is our job, why shouldn't we get paid for doing it well?
The idea of paying a child to do well in tests, and their grades overall might sound crazy and unethical. But to some degree this idea could work to motivate kids and actually have them doing something for themselves. It would be putting a wrong idea into their heads and it would have a bad image. But as explained in the article it could also help the kids' families and their economic situation at some point. The kids would be motivated therefore having a greater chance to be able to get a scholarship and attend college. In my opinion the program should be put to a test, but only in the needed areas, where there is a high percentage of families living in poverty. Students whose families aren't in need should not be paid to do well in school, they should know better that is for their own good.
Paying students for doing well, this idea is a tricky one to deal with. Basically it is a good idea and might help a lot of people, but it all depends how it's handled. So, I'll take things one by one.
If you have money, you can look at this from a moral position and say it is a bad plan. However, if you come from a poor family, it is a very appetizing proposal. It's about point of view partially, akin to the choice of underdeveloped countries to deforest or starve to death.
One issue: Cheating. Some are afraid of people cheating instead of actually trying. Well cheating is always a problem, even without the cash payout, but the amount of cheating instead of just not caring will most likely increase.
Next is that "school is not a job." That is sort of true as things stand now. One of the purposes of education system, aside from increasing our human capital, is to instill a work ethic, to ready us for the work force. That is why we wake up early, try our best to be on time (some of us), and work to do as well as we can. On the other hand, students that don't care enough to show up on time or do well usually don't have the most successful careers either.
Now for a flaw in the payoff system. The idea that paying kids for good grades will help poverty and give incentive to study. If you give them a material goal students may be more likely to work harder. This doesn't necessarily work with helping poverty however. If you give a kid the money directly, he/she won't spend it on education or helping their impoverished position, and if you give the parents the money to take care of, the child doesn't feel the incentive anymore. Children (or anyone else in the pre-college educational system) lack a good sense of foresight. If they get money they'll just spend it right then and there, they won't think about what might help them 10 years from then.
Basically I see two methods that might be used, neither of which are that great, but I thought I might as well throw them out there. Considering standardized tests are the only tests that can be counted because everyone takes them. If a payout system based on standardized test grades and overall GPA or something. It could be handled in one of two ways. At the end of the school year for that year's worth of work, which can be split between student and guardian. Another method could be in the form of a scholarship, which is available to everyone, just in different amounts.
I think it’s a good idea to give money for good grades; it’ll motivate kids to work harder to get good grades and then become successful. Also, those who are very smart and considered in poverty have a chance to make money to help support their families. It may cause an increase in people cheating on tests though. I say it’s a toss up.
What ever happened to applying yourself in order to do better in the future? The only prize I ever got for doing well in some fashion at school was a piece of candy for being on the winning team of a review game. But cash for good test scores? Sure there are the unmotivated masses who don't see the immediate benefit of an education but perhaps there could be some other incentive for doing well. Career days for students as young as 4th grade could show them what they can do if they stay in school and in doing so increase their potential earning possibility. And what if a student just sucks at taking tests? It doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means they are bad at taking tests. So what becomes of them when they don't see the 'benefit' of hard work? I've never been unmotivated, just lazy, and only ever saw going to a good college and getting out of East Hampton as the biggest incentive to do well. In an economist's world the model is perfect and everything works out well, but in the real world there are just far too many variables to consider.
Cash incentives for grads? psha.
I think that if a parent is willing to pay there child for receiving well grades then they should. This will motivate their child to continue to get good grades. Their child getting good grades will cause them to get into a good college where they might receive a scholarship and that scholarship will be much greater then the amount of money that the parents are paying their child, so in the long run the parents will benefit.
I think that if students are being paid for grades they would do a lot better. People would strive to do well. Again, in the long run they will get into good colleges and then they would be able to help their family if they are in need. On the other hand, students may cheat on test more frequently than before.
Post a Comment