Paying low-income students to pass the AP exam works, editorializes the Christian Science Monitor.
Texas schools with APIP (Advanced Placement Incentive Program) showed a 30 percent increase in the number of graduates who scored better than 1100 and 24 on the SAT and ACT college admission tests, respectively, according to a recent study at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. Such scores are indicative of later success in college. The study also found that the number of students admitted to colleges from APIP schools rose by about 8 percent.
Aren’t programs like this simply bribing kids to study? Shouldn’t teachers and parents be able to get the same results by instilling a love of learning and by demanding excellence?
In theory, yes. But advocates of APIP-style incentives point out that students raised in homes below the poverty line often have parents who dropped out of school and who may not value education. They need to see clear rewards in order to take school seriously.
At two schools in Fulton County, Georgia, selected students will get $8 an hour to attend after-school tutoring sessions funded by a private donation. That’s better than minimum wage for doing poorly in school.
I get very tired of reading about “parents who dropped out of school and who may not value education.” I believe these parents, living with the reality of minimum wage jobs, do value education. Nothing will make you value an education more than working 12 hour days cleaning other people’s toilets.
What parents living in poverty often don’t have is the skills and inside knowledge it takes to successfully manage their students education. They don’t know that their child’s IEP meeting will be endlessly delayed because they haven’t forced the issue and threatened a lawsuit. They don’t know that a transfer from their crappy neighborhood school is possible, but only if someone has endless hours to chase down paperwork to make it happen. They don’t know that when the school administrator says “we can’t” it really means, “we could, but we won’t” and that a phone call to their school board member could change that to “of course we can.” Public schools set up enormous obstacles to success, and parents who were unsuccessful in school themselves have little chance of helping their own children.
Confusing article. It says that the students are paid to pass AP exams, but then it says
But the SAT and the ACT are high school level tests, not AP tests. What is this program actually paying for?
I live fairly close to Atlanta (Fulton County) and will be watching the pay-per-performance deal with students closely. I’ll admit I haven’t checked into it that much but I’m interested in how the students were chosen, school data from the two schools, and the data once this whole thing plays out.
Just on face value I think we are opening a door here in Georgia that should remain closed.
I don’t mind pay-for-performance programs as long as public funds aren’t paying for them and that they actually require performance. A school I once worked at had a grant-funded program that paid students to come to afterschool “help sessions.” Unfortunately, the students figured out the pay was based solely upon attendance and the program became a joke.
Molly-
“I believe these parents, living with the reality of minimum wage jobs, do value education. Nothing will make you value an education more than working 12 hour days cleaning other people’s toilets.”
…that is unless you get paid by the government to do nothing but have kids. I agree that parents don’t need to be high school graduates to be good education-minded parents, but they do have to have a good work ethic and respect for authority, which many parents (especially in low-income urban areas) don’t possess.
First we pay for their education and now we have to pay more to get them to take advantage of what’s being offered?
Seems a little nutty to me.
The after school tutoring thing in Atlanta is interesting to me if they targeted it a really limited pool: kids who are likely to drop out because they have to work to help their families survive. In those cases, it might be worth it socially to spend a little more per kid.
but it still seem crazy.
I’m just hoping the students don’t form a union but then I’m not a comedian so I can’t put together a routine based on the situation.
Some of the possibilities are, however, intriguing.
For instance, is that $8/hour rate for entry-level students or all students? It seems to me that as a student has more time on “the job” they ought to receive higher compensation.
Naturally, pay shouldn’t be related to performance as this might undercut the sort of communal effort that results in shared educational experience that encourages tolerance and support diversity.
Does the job come with a retirement plan?
Make sure the kids pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, health insurance, unemployment insurance and disability insursnce.
Really, what are we teaching the kids about responsibility and intrinsic motivation with this line of thought?It just seems wrong to pay people to do what they are supposed to do.
Chris Rock parodies this line of thought quite well when he says some people brag about what they are supposed to do. Her is one example (the clean version):
Braggart: “I take care of my kids.”
Rock: “You’re supposed to…what do you want, a cookie?”
I am wondering if it is the parents that are being bribed more so than the kids. Same thing with the parents who are being paid to get library cards for their kids (?New York I think, mentioned here on this blog). I can see a parent being more likely to make sure that their kids spend time on something if the kid is being paid for it.
I had parents that thought school was a waste of time beyond the basic 3 Rs. I am the educated fool in the family who went on to obtain a Master’s degree, but my parents still think I wasted my time and money. Ironically, my parents love to read and to learn new things, but their belief growing up was that one did not have to be sitting in a school in order to open up a book.
Most people in my parents’ families quit school very early in order to work, because time spent in school was time wasted not being paid at a job. My mother tells me stories about how people were made fun of, especially high school age boys, for giving up a chance to earn money to instead sit in a classroom. A high school diploma did not mean a better future for most of my mother’s peers. While I realize how archaic that sounds today, I suspect that there are still parents that have this belief, that money makes something more valuable.
I once asked what used to be called a truant officer in a poor school district why the parents weren’t interested in their kids’ education. After all, their lack had to be made manifest on every employment application they ever filled out.
Starting on the right, “completed eight grade”, then “some high school” over to “graduate degree” on the far left.
Why on earth would parents be happy to see their kids stuck on the left side with “some high school” and a lousy employment prospect?
“You don’t need to graduate from high school to know how to game the system. And that’s the parents’ ambition for their kids.” Hell of a reply.
As to paying, we tell kids that their efforts at school will pay off in twenty or thirty years. While adults get paid every couple of weeks, and extra effort and luck might result in a substantial bump in pay or position within a year. That’s backwards.
Makes me wonder if this is good use of tax money. Maybe the money should be used to hire more teachers and smaller classes so the kids get more help and attention. Interesting idea but I’m not sure it is a good one.