Paying poor kids to improve

Washington D.C. has a program that offers cash incentives to kids who "go to class, get good grades, and behave."

It is a system that Roland Fryer, who grew up poor and became an "assistant professor of economics at Harvard before he was 30," created. Fryer believes that paying kids for grades incentivizes them to do well. Dallas also has a program initiated by Fryer, Earning by Learning, that pays kids to read books.

I'm not yet convinced by the program. I am of the camp that believes learning should be it's own internal reward. I admit that belief biases my concerns. However, my concerns do go beyond learning-for-learning's-sake.

As the Washington Post article mentions, "Payments have been inconsistent, Woods said, even as the program calls for consistently good behavior. One afternoon late last month, D'Angelo and his brother Kyree, both sixth-graders, received their money. But their sister Diamond did not."

Schools are not set up to pay students like McDonald's pays employees. Therefore, there are not consequences to the school when they don't pay a child on time or if they somehow overlook the child's "paycheck." The potential for inconsistency is not fair to the child and could de-incentivize.

Some students "pour water on their checks if they are too low, saturating them until they fall apart."

The check is the end of the incentive. There is no financial literacy program that helps the kids understand that saving even a little money can add up, create a savings account, or understand the difference between cashing a check at a check-cashing place for $2 or cashing it at your bank for free.

One of the teachers' asked, "What happens when the money dries up?"

This is a major issue. I have seen a lot of wealthy people and groups come into the inner city and make big "forever" promises...usually financially based--football fields, college scholarships, school supplies, food--and they *all* disappear. In my 13 years, despite fists banging on the table declaring, "WE WILL NOT LEAVE!" I have not yet seen one who has made these big promises stick around for the long haul. Relying on someone else's money is not sustainable. Funding goes away. The need for education doesn't. Paying kids $2 to read a book (but only up to a limited number) either pays the kids who are already reading or pays kids to read and creates a system where the reading stops when the money's gone.

The former principal of the school commented, "There's just not a belief from everybody that this can work, that you can help these students to bring out their greatness," Students, she said, "have to see that people care about their success."

Seeing that people care may be part of the issue. But caring about kids' grades is not going to solve the problem if the kids are not being taught well. Caring is not going to help if grades are inflated to make students feel better about their work. We must do more to make sure kids are learning the material. Oftentimes kids hate to read because they are in upper-elementary and still struggle to read a picture book. Paying them to read does not make reading easier for them. Instead, it can cause more frustreation because they don't have the same opportunity as other kids to earn the money.

Instead of using monetary incentives, why not invest that money in struggling school systems that are cutting back on teachers and other educational opportunities? Why not look toward our future and invest money in teaching technology and making learning opportunities more interesting? In my mind, bribing the kids is not the way to go. Innovative teaching and ensuring kids learn is the long-term solution.

Wasteful spending??

Today's headline in the Dallas Morning News: DISD Misused Federal Grants.

My first reaction to this article was irritation.

No wonder our kids in DISD aren't doing well when the principals and teachers are spending money on flowers for their secretaries, playstations for the kids, and cute throws for the teachers...all in the name of "encouragement!"

I do not agree with incentives in the first place. I believe that too many people work too hard trying to buy a child's (and parent's) interest in education rather than making the education process interesting and meaningful enough so that kids (and parents) have internal motivation and incentives to participate.

I think this is especially bad in the inner city. I hear people say all of the time, "That's the only way 'these' kids will want to learn." or, "That's the only way 'these' parents will participate is if we feed them or pay them." I don't buy it. I have a full staff of parents in our After-School Academy. I truly believe they work so hard because the After-School Academy is a meaningful way for them to participate in their child's education. I'm sure it's not for money because they could go other places and get more hours and probably make more per hour.

I wish people would work hard to figure out how to spend that extra grant money on cool, educational things that could pique a child's interest instead of trying to bribe them into attending school by offering them a playstation.

My second thought was indignation.

How could they possibly take grant money allocated for the kids and spend it on employees and themselves??

Yet, I quickly thought of the times that I, too, have wanted to let the employees of our After-School Academy (ASA) know that they are appreciated. Though there are times I purchase things out of pocket, there are times where I take liberties to purchase things using our ASA budget as well. Maybe I, too, should be more careful.

My final thought was about inequity.

I have friends who work for corporations and companies that use incentives and give their employees business credit cards. My friends have been given jump drives (that cost about $60+ in the store) and backpacks designed for laptops. They have been given Treos and Blackberries complete with unlimited text messaging, email, and whatever other amenities are possible. Not too long ago a friend came through Dallas on business and took me to eat. He assured me his company would pay for it and wouldn't mind a bit. We even went up the street after dinner to enjoy ice cream on the company. Several years ago, a friend of mine worked for a large accounting firm in Chicago. He and a couple of his co-workers purchased Bulls tickets on the company's credit card.

Why is it that when a public company provides these "extras" no one says a word? For companies and corporations, these "extras" are so common that I think the employees would probably be offended if they weren't included.

Yet, when someone works with children or in the social service sector, perks are seen as frivilous and mis-spent money. I suppose "civil servants" are supposed to be sacrificial in every aspect of their job and life. A pat on the back should be sufficient.


It is somewhat humorous to me that it is our money being "wasted" in private companies just the same as it is our money being "wasted" in publicly funded companies. We are willing to look the other way in a private company, yet we want to stand up, bang our fist on the table, and demand that they re-think giving our money away to "wasteful" venues when we talk about our tax dollars (especially when what those tax dollars are being spent for doesn't directly benefit us!).

I'm actually not defending DISD. I would like to see DISD's money used appropriately--and I don't think it always has been. DISD has a lot of work to do, in my opinion. But before I jump on the bandwagon of condemning DISD, I have to think through the accusations and realize that theirs may be no different than any company. They're just an easier target.