Pay-to-learn Programs: Awesome or Not Awesome?

So students at an East Austin high school improved performance after participating in a program where they where essentially paid to learn...$6/hr for attending math tutoring (article here). Similar programs are underway in New York, Atlanta and Baltimore, and are being tested in many other cities around the country.

Obviously, the money isn't increasing the ability of the students who participate in these programs to learn. It simply motivates them to use the tools (i.e. tutors) that tax payers and private donors provide. I've decided that I'm in support of programs like these. There are millions of dollars being spent on schools to improve education, yet many of those schools continue to close due to low performance--Pearce middle school in East Austin just closed it's doors this summer in spite of being highly funded by Austin ISD. You can read about it here. Looks like maybe they where paying the wrong people?

Some people who don't support these kinds of pay-to-learn programs argue that parents should get more involved in their kids' public school education and that paying kids to do what they ideally should be internally motivated to do is teaching them the wrong lesson about work and money and motivation and success. Ideally? Yes. Ideally, of course they're right. Unfortunately, reality still leaves us with parents who are disengaged in their kids' education process in a country that is largely motivated by money. And isn't it a good thing when young Americans realize the connection between positive hard work and pay? 

I say if you can lead the horse to water and make him drink, who cares how you get 'em to do it as long as it's legal?

*Update* 7/28: There's a nice little exchange of opinions going on over on Facebook, where I posted this link. I could not resist sharing the thoughts of my Facebook fam with you guys. Good reading after the jump...(FYI, Sylvester is my dad---now  you know otherwise you might be confused at first.)

Jennifer-"NO!"

Summer- "if it works, yep."

Rhea- "yes, if they want to create a perm under-class which is to the overall system's benefit...create a 'world owes me a living' attitude early on...it devalues the entire idea a what education is to create...please don't trip on my soap-box"

Summer- "buuuuuut, that class currently exists, and they're just getting dumber and dumber. i'm all for solutions. this is one solution. what are others??"

Quel- "Thanks for weighing in, guys. Summer you done done it now. They're going to have to create a whole other facebook to hold Adriane's response to that question. lol"

Rhea- "solution- let school resemble REAL LIVE, when the kids get to corporate america no one is going to pay you to try harder...i just want to see a wider variety of leaders and i am not sure $6 a hour will do it...lets not swing all the way to the right and make a bunch of psychos but at some point you learn because you want to..."

Adriane- "I was so stunned by the posting that I have had to take a few minutes. I will have to get back to this later. I will say that when the idea came to light through a black Harvard professor, it made me sick. Because people often come up with "solutions" that would be insulting to them and their children. Paying for grades feeds the need for immediate... Read More gratification which reduces the capacity for long-term commitment to difficult to achieve goals and can imprison the most disadvantaged in fields that do not require working to acquire advanced skills. It creates an artificial sense of entitlement in communities that cannot fulfill the entitlement, and just like every other "solution" that makes its way into our communities, it won't last because the beneficent foundations will come up with something else that makes them excited about saving the poor black and Latino kids in the cities. And then what? I really have other things to say, but I'll stop there. For now."

Sylvester- "I'll read this and get back to you. What I would like for you to do is answer the question "what motivated you to want to learn" Your words were "BORN TO LEARN" answer that and you're on the right tract to group success."

Sylvester- "I didn't pay either of you in dollars to learn. but the more right answers you got the greater the rewards, attention, and privileges you got. I feel you lived to please me because I couldn't get in the house for you rushing me to show me what you had accomplished. and I was fool enough to act like each one was like putting a man on the moon. Once  instilled in you Adriane you motivated Raquel. Rodney required a little longer to catch on but he got there. Find out how to translate that to a group and you have the answer to higher grades, and better motivated students."

Raquel- "Dad, what you're talking about is parental involvement which is going to work every time. The problem is there isn't enough of that so they're throwing money into the mix, which seems to do it for some groups of kids."

Sally- "Have you read "Punished by Rewards"? I don't entirely agree with Alfie Kohn, but I think some things (bribing kids to study) cross the line. I'd rather see more solutions that help kids develop a sense of the personal fulfillment that comes with applying themselves. Not sure what those would be, but I can't believe bribery is ultimately a very effective answer."

Marjorie- "Paying to learn will only last for a moment. We have rewards on Friday and this becomes the greatest attendance day, Monday the lowest. What becomes of the students when they become employees and there is no incentive. Here you find if you don't work you don't eat. This pay to learn will lay good groundwork for 'new slavery'."

Adriane- "One more thing..the problems we see in schooling outcomes are not entirely school-based. While we need to have well-trained teachers and quality curricula, we also need to be honest about the fact that our social policy breeds deep inequality that shows up on standardized tests. I could write an entire dissertation on parent involvement--and have--so I won't get into that. But there are institutional and structural reasons why some parents are not as "involved" as we might think appropriate. And there are, of course, a few people who shouldn't have children. But I am convinced they are the minority regardless of race or social class. I've seen some absentee parenting far up the social class food chain and the academic results are the same...but the life consequences are not."

And the discussion continues...

Comments

[Michelle]

I live in NYC and my boyfriend is a teacher. I'm with you on this. Unfortunately when you have PTO meetings for a school that has 300 kids and only 20 parents show up something has to be done to motivate the kids.

[theprisonerswife]

"Some people who don't support these kinds of pay-to-learn programs argue that parents should get more involved in their kids' public school education and that paying kids to do what they ideally should be internally motivated to do is teaching them the wrong lesson about work and money and motivation and success. "

i find it ironic that those people who say that paying kids to learn is teaching them bad values about work, are the same people that probably work super hard and expect a raise. working hard garners FINANCIAL rewards in the real life, period. if you work very hard at your job (unless you're a teacher like me LOL), more than likely you'll be rewarded with bonuses, promotions, and higher pay. so this isn't too far fetched.

growing up, my parents rewarded me with money for my grades. $20 for As, $10 for Bs. nothing else for anything lower than that, so i quickly understood that As and Bs were what was acceptable in my house, and from then on, i kept the As and Bs flowing, even when my parents stopped giving me money.

as a teacher i see kids being rewarded without working for ANYTHING. most of my students have ipods, sidekicks, designer clothes and nikes....and no school supplies (and i work in a very urban middle school, all my kids qualify for free lunch). so they already live in a culture of GIMME. i'd MUCH rather them be movtivated to learn because they were going to be POSITIVELY rewarded, than sit in the back of the class and act like they don't care.

parental involvement is vital. but sadly, for many kids, it's not there. during back to school night or parent conferences i MIGHT get 15 parents, and i always have 100+ students. maybe of my students are foster kids, their parents/moms work multiple jobs, or are just not interested in keeping up with their kids' education. so for these children, should we just shrug our shoulders & hope they become internally motivated when they have NOTHING motivating them?

what should we do? just continue to let them fail? continue to let our boys make a b-line to state prisons? why NOT try every, single way to motivate them to do right. perhaps they will internalize it and seeing how, aside from a few dollars, having an education will help them in the long run.

[vanderlei]

so if almost everyone here agrees that parental involvement is the key to student achievement why arent there any solutions that work towards that goal?

[browngirl]

No. I think this actually devalues education. Why should you be paid to engage in a service provided to you for free?

I never received money from my parents for good grades, but I still made them. They demanded the best and I was more than happy to deliver to save the skin on my ass and to please myself.
It's just like the people who think they deserve credit for taking care of their children. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO!

No one should be paid to self improve.

And @vanderlei: That's a good question. The parents have to want to participate. They have to stop making excuses about work or being too tired or whatever. You can have all the programs in place and even canvassers going door-to-door, but if the parents won't show up, it's pointless.

[Kathy Seal]

What a great discussion here. Have to say I agree with your dad. At the same time I agree with those who say that everyone should stop blaming parents. Parents who inspire their kids are terrific, but it's not always easy for parents to do that for a multiplicity of reasons. Schools and teachers can inspire and motivate kids. We all remember wonderfully inspiring teachers.
The problem with the quick fix of paying kids to learn is that it it squelches any motivation the kids already might have. It teaches them that learning is something that's worth money, and blots out the idea that learning can be interesting, enjoyable, exciting, satisfying and valuable – in and of itself. It risks then that when you stop paying kids, they'll stop studying. But we want our kids to go to college, and keep learning afterward too, because that's what good jobs today demand.
IF you want to "jump start" a kid who's doing nothing, maybe that's okay for starters. But it irks me that foundations are paying literally millions of dollars to pay kids for grades, when those millions could go toward hiring teachers who make learning esciting and interesting and show kids why it's so valuable. Good teachers help kids feel competent and cared for and that's what motivates them to learn.
What also bothers me is that this is the kind of teaching that goes on in the fancy prep schools and in the very good suburban schools and the good charter or Catholic or magnet schools. Why don't those who want to pay poor inner city kids to learn use that money instead to give those kids the fine motivating education that wealthier or luckier kids are getting?
There's lots of research that shows when you're internally motivated to learn, not working for an external reward, that the quality of your learning is better. So this quick fix idea is really producing inferior learning. That is very disheartening to say the least.

[adiaha]

Parents are generally trying to survive the American dream. That means different things for different families but most parents are working to keep food on the table & roofs over everyone's head. When you are just trying to survive, there is little time or energy for other things. I am assuming that the majority of the students fall into the working and working poor economic class. I just can't imagine middle class and upper middle class kids thinking $6 and hour was enough to get them to go to tutoring.

Paying children to learn is not intrinsically bad per se, but can give some false ideas about how the corporate world really works. It will in many cases set people up for failure, because it gives a sense of entitlement. None of us is entitled to anything. Especially if you are some shade of brown in America.

Great discussion!