Today's Post has a story about a DC public school pilot program that rewards middle school kids with money. The students are expected to attend class, behave well, and earn good grades and in return are paid a salary depending on their achievements. This program is an attempt to create a sense of competition and pride in DC schools, which are notoriously some of the worst in the country.
I have to say the concept of this program really bothers me. Not only does it engender a sense of shame for students who don't get paid as much as their peers, it also creates a bizarre type of class-structure, placing kids who earn more above those who earn less. Our society already takes away childhood too quickly, adults constantly express their shock at how young kids now are experimenting with sex and drugs. Why, then, would a program that treats kids as though they are middle-aged employees of a company be considered a good idea? While I understand the general concept of trying to create incentive for better grades, I think that this program is dangerously playing with the childhood innocence of DC students. I can't imagine what my life would have been like if I was forced to act like an adult at such a young age. DC schools need to find a different method of improving their systems and let kids be kids for as long as they can be.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
While I can understand Katie's sentiments, I do believe that this program, perhaps not in its current form, is a worthy temporary solution to a difficult problem. Students, regardless of whether they receive money for their grades, can feel a sense of shame when fellow students outperform them.
I do believe childhood should be preserved for as long as possible. I don't believe that money should be rewarded for good behavior or wearing school uniforms, but Roland Freyer's work in Chicago using monetary incentives to reward students for high test scores has been successful so far. DC public school systems are truly falling behind. In this difficult situation, and while the money is available, I don't see why monetary rewards shouldn't be used.
Roland Fryer came to Hamilton to speak about this freshman year.
The bottom line behind this program is to provide incentives for kids to stay in school and try hard. By discouraging kids from dropping out or otherwise flunking, I think this program enhances the overall quality of life. Life goes on after childhood.
We're mostly from upper-class schools where it would have been ridiculous to institute a program such as this. Our parents are educated and they promoted our own education. We were given the opportunity to go to college and we understood the importance of succeeding in school. We were given incentives for our success. Indeed, our incentives were long-term, but we grew up with the resources to delay our ultimate payoff... which will hopefully be coming June of 2010.
As for the less fortunate, their parents do not actively promote their education. Some kids are in failing school districts with no chance of ever attending college. There is no incentive for a child in this situation to put in that extra effort and turn a C+ into a B. These kids are given very little incentive to succeed.
By paying kids for their success along the way, this program gives kids a reason to show up to school the next day. Everyone needs money and most of the people in the Hamilton program grew up with plenty of it. For the kids that do not have these kind of resources, getting paid to go to school can offset the need to drop out and work a dead-end job.
As far as I understand it, this program is very successful at keeping kids in school and promoting hard work. Like Wenxi said, this is not a long-term solution but it is working.
I too attended Roland Fryer's discussion about providing monetary incentives for young inner city students to do well. Ideally, it seems like a good idea. Give kids money for doing well so that they learn and in the process, understand the value of learning. It could even be a long term solution. The problem is that it may take a very, very long time to see any results.
I heard reactions to such plans. Some people were afraid that children with money would use it to buy drugs, and peddle them - surely a faster, and guarenteed way to make money. When you give students money at such a young age, with little judgement and experience in the world, the potential for this type of behavior in poor neighborhoods is very high. What child wouldn't opt for a faster, easier albeit dangerous way to make money? After all, studying and doing well takes a great deal of effort at young ages.
Roland Fryer responded to this point. While the argument can certainly be made, when this program has been instituted, there is no evidence of kids buying drugs.
(Keep in mind this program was being applied to elementary school kids)
It always takes a couple of years for deliquents to figure out how to abuse the system. His program was very recently instituted, and no definitive conclusions can really be drawn about its success.
True, these students are in elementary school. What about when they graduate elementary school? I think it is a valid concern that they would begrudge a system that all of a sudden stopped paying them to do well.
In any case, to let the cynic in me rest, if such programs do work, after several generations of successful inner city students, the program should start making plans to close. Teaching kids that the only value to learning is money will limit their views on their potential in the world. There are great jobs that don't pay that way.
I certainly agree with you. This is not a viable solution in the long-term.
At the same time, we need to figure out how to keep kids in school. Until we find a real solution, this seems to be working.
There might not be evidence of kids buying drugs with the money, but if you read the article there is a lot of evidence of theft brought about by the program. Lockers and backpacks are raided on a regular basis by kids trying to steal others' checks. Also, some kids are so shamed by their monetary rewards that they destroy the checks, completely wasting the money.
Like I said before, I understand the principle behind the program and I agree that something needs to be done in DC schools. But Charlie, no offense, you are in no position to say that life goes on after childhood because you had a privileged one, just like the rest of us. You might not feel that way if yours was taken away from you at such an early age.
Maybe it's just the inherent camp counselor in me, but having witnessed how quickly kids grow up today I'm in no hurry to further speed up the process.
It's interesting hearing about this issue once again as it seems to come up in the news quite often over the past few years. I too attended the lecture by Roland Freyer, and while I can understand the need for improvement in the inner city school system. Like Wenxi, I too have to an issue with the payment of children for doing well in school. We are talking about children here, they are not old enough to work so the incentive to drop out and go for a job is not present yet. Giving them the idea that money is the end goal simply isn't right at such a young age. Yet to contradict my own statements if results are being made then something must be judged as better than nothing.
Yes, the article addresses the fact that children are shamed to the point that they rip up the check. But what are they actually ashamed of--that they are receiving this money or that the money they receive is not enough? If the kids who are ripping up the money don't want it, I'm sure there are a lot more deserving and achieving children who will.
That's the nice part about a check. If it's not cashed then the money stays in the original account to motivate kids that want it.
Post a Comment