Friday
September 12, 2008
by desertjim
On September 11, 2008, the Chicago Tribune headlined an article “Earn an A? Here’s $50.” The article went on to describe a pilot program which will pay up to 5000 freshmen for earning good grades. The Harvard designed program will measure students every five weeks in math, English, social studies, science and PE. Earning money on a graduated scale from $50 for an A to $20 for a C, a straight A student can earn up to $4000 in the first two years of high school (one half of the money will be held back until graduation).
Chicago Public School chief executive Arne Duncan is in favor of the program, “...I’m trying to level the playing field. This is the kind of incentive that middle-class families have had for decades.” Critics call it a bribe. Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College says, It’s a terrible idea because you are getting people to do things for wrong reasons.” The idea is based on the fact that adults who do well at work expect raises. For employees, higher pay is an incentive to work harder. Why shouldn’t the same thing apply to students?
Based on this logic, district officials in Dallas, Texas started paying students for scoring well on Advanced Placement tests in 1996. Similar programs exist in Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut and Virginia. In New York city, more than $500,000 has been doled out in two years . The New York city program involved fourth and seventh grade students in 60 public schools for one school year. The program, designed by Harvard economist Roland Fryer was intended to, “Figure out a way to make school tangible for kids, to come up with short-term rewards that will be in their long-term best interests.” In Albuquerque, NM, students at a charter school can earn up to $300 a year for good attendance. In Santa Ana, CA and Baltimore, MD, students can earn money for doing well on standardized tests.
Janet Bodnar in Kiplinger’s Personal Finance questions whether such programs can actually improve learning.She points out that, “High achieving students will get good grades anyway, so you’re wasting your money. Kids who are underacheivers fail because they’re inconsistent [according to child psychologist Sylvia Rimm] so if they slip and get a poor grade, they figure they’re not going to get the reward and give up.” Bodnar feels that learning is a sign of a child’s natural growth and development. Since we don’t pay kids for learning to tie their shoes or ride a bike, we shouldn’t pay them for learning to read.
The little bit of research that exists was all done on earlier programs. It seems to show that, despite short-term gain, pay for grades may be detrimental in the long-term. Earlier programs showed decreased student motivation once the incentives were removed. Nonetheless, the people supporting the current programs feel that once students actually get good grades in order to earn money, they will realize their own abilities and know that they can be successful in school.
But the question is still open - is pay for grades a way to create more successful students?
Labels:
As educators, we have to keep in mind that students do not just learn what we teach them, but students also learn what is implied by our words and actions. The underlying message of this program is that students should only work for a tangible reward such as money, and that money is the only benefit of earning a good grade. Such extrinsic rewards are damaging to a student’s work ethic in the long run.
For more on this topic, I suggest the book “Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes” by Alfie Kohn, ISBN 0-395-71090-1.
I’ve attached an e-mail linked to the Chicago Sun-Times take on this issue, that I received from Marshall Rosenthal at the Golden Apple Foundation:
In an ideal world, no child would get a cash reward for earning good grades.
They’d be motivated solely by a love of learning, getting into college and making themselves or their parents proud (or at least not making them mad).
Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in. Consider these Chicago Public Schools stats:
. . Just 55 percent of students graduate high school. Among black males, it’s 40 percent.
. . Some 42 percent of freshmen weren’t “on track” to graduate last year. That means they failed more than one course and didn’t earn at least five course credits.
. . Some 85 percent of students are considered low income.
For the rest of the article go to this link -
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1159378,CST-EDT-edit12.article
I’ve just finished reading the bookThere are No Shortcuts by Rafe Esquith. This text does not directly address rewards, yet I think it contributes to my reaction in this situation.
We know that relevant rewards are very motivating. Receiving a gift in exchange for good work, character-wise or achievement-wise, can be that dangling carrot the next time around: something kids salivate over, focus on, charge ceaselessly toward.
Rewards work. They create habit, get results. Ask Pavlov. It makes entire logical and practical sense to give students something tangible in exchange for doing well.
Now, it’s inherent in the system, expected. My district has just completed its fourth week of school, and already I’ve had so many encounters with the “what’s the payoff” attitude that I cannot begin to count. Students have gone beyond hoping for this end result, beyond looking for it. They have assumed so much authority over the reward system that they simply expect it to come to them freely and without hesitation.
The book I mentioned comes in right here. We are perpetuating shortcuts for our kids. We are training them for a dream world. I respect that reality and statistics show test-based financial crises, these crises’ disintegration of quality instruction, and the value of such very persuasive tactics to quickly remedy these things.
However, I implore the educational community to consider this: Are we consistently and regularly been rewarded with just what we’ve needed or wanted on merit alone? Does life cut us a break and increase the pot every time that we take foolish gambles or our chips just happen to be low? We live in a world where people are enterprising, opportunistic, selfish, impatient. Our employers, our families, our government---all want results, have assumptions and expectations about our capabilities, and require us to stretch. While there can be intermittent incentives set before us, most of our fulfillment professionally and personally is not contingent on tangible payoffs. We perform in hopes for success and rewards, but the reserve that the results may not entertain our desires.
There are no shortcuts to what we want. There are no shortcuts to true academic success. There are no shortcuts to emotional fulfillment. We train our kids to expect that on the first attempt, a worthwhile and exceedingly pleasing gift awaits. We teach them also that these material rewards are prioritized above the internal ones. We train them to look at the world with pleading eyes and expectancy; to perform only when the odds for a personally fulfilling outcome are stacked in their favor. We create a mindset of selfishness, laziness, and false competence.
People ARE broke, uneducated, living under uncontrollable and unfortunate circumstances. This is true. We are lying to our kids. Not every attempt that they make will be successful. Not every task set before them will be conquered in the first take. Life requires work, sacrifice, failure, disappointment, and selflessness. It is inconsistent with its rewards, it is unfair, inequitable, and weighty. Without the wisdom of years to realize this, our students are victimized by our practices. We fail to recognize that what we are doing by conditioning them with regular rewards is disarming them for the onset of adulthood.
Surely, we wouldn’t want to defeat students and send them out as cynics, but without allowing them to nurture a personally valuable emotions, both positive and negative, we overshadow their abilities to cope with these sorts of difficulties.
Our students are valuable to us, and we put these systems into place under good intentions. We want to better our schools, get our kids the fair shake that will remove their position as the outsiders to spectacular science labs, personal copies of novels, respectable gymnasium floors, effective classroom ratios, respectable locker space, quality supplies, and horizon-broadening experiences. How can we do so without the financial support? It’s difficult, it’s nearly impossible, and, without discussing our own personal career goals and politicking, all depends on what our kids do to reflect our competence.
Yes, we are under a considerable amount of crisis regarding our learners’ achievement, the bureaucracy’s system for awarding educational monies, and the American dream to continually improve the quality of life. In the same turn, are we not creating for ourselves a future crisis? A population that will not move to serve the larger purposes unless for personal gain? It’s a tricky situation, but I urge that we continue to find innovative ways to support students’ development of personal, principle-based identities rather than feeding into a destructive epidemic that reaches far beyond the walls of any school or the limits of any single lifespan. We are investing in our future, no? The future of our kids as well? Let’s set them up for success, not passivity.
LJR says, “We train our kids to expect that on the first attempt, a worthwhile and exceedingly pleasing gift awaits. We teach them also that these material rewards are prioritized above the internal ones.”
Thomas J. West, makes the same point. He writes, “The underlying message of this program is that students should only work for a tangible reward such as money, and that money is the only benefit of earning a good grade.
These are solid arguments against paying for grades. I think they make it clear what kind of long-term problem the CPS/Harvard program, and similar pay-for-grades programs, can create.
Does anyone have as solid an argument that pay-for-grades will actually create successful students?
Nice post. Now some legal point of view.
So long as the willful action of a child or adult does not cause damage to the teacher, then no torts occur. But, if a child or parent decide they want-for whatever reason-to deny money to a teacher by not performing well, that child and parent have committed a tort.
Teachers will consitutionally be allowed to sue a parent for willful failure that causes a lose of money for that teacher. Any law on the books to prevent a teacher from doing sue in unconsitutional.
Our powers-that-be bette think about this before they hold teachers responsible for the free-will acitons of parents and students.
The way things are going it seems the only people resopndsible in the education environment are teachers. We can’t tax a parent more because their child is a failure...or can we?
Thank you for this forum,
Miller Smith
Miller,
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that students and parents can sue if they don’t get the cash for grades? It seems to be that you are saying the opposite - that its the teachers who are not getting paid.
I think this thing they are doing is really stupid. I went to a Chicago high school for my junior year before i came out to Colorado. I dont think you need to pay your children for their grades, they should want to do good in school. And if they get half now and half later wont you think that they will not keep their money they will spend it on something bad like weed. its the parents choice to give something to their child when they get a good grade. And when the kids that do horrible in school try to do go there not gonna go to college there just gonna have a lot of money. If that is their plan why should we say good job with your grades when their going to mess up their lifes and other people. I think they need to stop this. I do good in school i dont get paid and im happy that i try to get a good grade without anything in return
*A Girl*
