Comments on: Does Money Talk When It Comes to Education?

By: A. Dupin

A. Dupin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:37:54 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Glenn. I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly. All of this bribery business seems like a short-term solution to a long-term problem; like a gardener who waters the leaves but fails to care for the roots; like a carpenter who builds a house from the top down. I could ride the analogy train all the way to cliche’ville if I wanted to, but I think I’ll get off here.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:49:46 +0000

As someone who has dealt with the routine let-downs of the public education system his entire life, I can only imagine the reaction of my school district if students were bribed to pass tests. As a student, my knee-jerk reaction would be to celebrate at the notion of actually making money for acing my tests — I’m reasonably intelligent, I have a decent work ethic… it would be easy money. After all, I would have passed the tests anyways. But therein lies the problem, and my objection to such policies.

Rewarding underachieving students for a temporary display of perseverance and acceptable study skills in such a grandiose fashion is unreasonable – if they are coddled so in high school, what will become of them when they land in college, or grad school, or in their first full-time job?

Some schools refund the costs of AP Exams to passing students (or subsidize off the top). I am fine with that much. But (especially in the case of Baltimore) bribing students to finally work up the gumption to move beyond mediocrity, while some students go unnoticed despite being motivated during their entire scholastic career? Not so much.

By: jz

jz — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:44:49 +0000

You anticipated my suggestion in the last line of your post. Well played! You’re right, this money could be used a lot more effectively. College tuition incentives is a real incentive. Cash in hand is merely a reward.

Yet, educators shouldn’t completely underestimate the power of individual incentive, as Dallas has shown. The incentives need not be cash or huge prizes. Small individual incentives COUPLED with all those things suggested above could seriously improve schools. Spread the wealth, I say.

I think that those school districts who offer just cash incentives merely play off and FEED monetary greed. Every child is interested in academics and learning, they just don’t know it yet. The skills learned in high school, benefit all people whether they’re mechanics, sports professionals, waitresses or full tenured philosophy professors. For instance, I was never really interested in reading until I found subject that interested me. I think that is the case with a lot of kids these days.

By: Nearly Graduated Office Worker

Nearly Graduated Office Worker — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:12 +0000

Ok, so the first thing that comes into my mind when I read this was how screwed up we are that we have to pay kids to perform better. Yikes, I really don’t like the focus on money as incentive, although I suppose someone with a more practical (and less of a utopian) outlook might roll their eyes at what I’m saying. For the exact reasons that Alfie Kohn noted, this is a terrible idea. Plus, this is a classic bandaid approach. We’re not attacking the problem, as you said, we’re not putting money into improving education, we’re throwing money at students in order for them to fix the numbers – make test scores higher so that we can all feel better about education in this country. Regardless of where it gets them or how it affects them. While at the same time it places even more emphasis on wealth, and the value of cash in this society. This will of course motivate some kids (the ones who are the most interested in money), but not all. Those who don’t get hot thinking about the $1000 they’ll get after passing the AP test (by whatever means necessary, cheating, if they have to) well, those kids will be (dare I say it?) left behind.