| Con-Incentives (3/08) | | Print | |
| Written by Anthony Clay | |
|
As the old adage goes, “give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will live forever.” Similarly, the “Learn and Earn” program offers a short term solution to a chronic problem.
Proponents of this plan say that giving students money for improvements to grades is an extension of the reward system that is common amongst wealthier parents. They argue that by rewarding students with money, students will respond positively and become motivated to work harder. But by attempting to play parent, the leaders of this initiative are overstepping boundaries. This program also assumes that students who go to the after-school tutoring sessions will actually want to better their scores. Yes, they are given higher incentives to improve their grades and test scores, but they are guaranteed $8 an hour for merely attending. A student could stare at a wall for four hours a week and walk away with 32 dollars. Students will have no motivation to succeed beyond fulfilling the minimum requirements of the program for financial gain. Students who do use the time to study and succeed will only place out of the program and lose the financial incentive that fueled their success in the first place. Steady motivation comes internally. By offering students money to improve their academics, we are offending others who feel that learning is a reward in itself. After this, who will decide to learn if unprompted by material incentives? This plan only serves to teach the value of money, not the value of education or self-discipline. As long as the money flows, the students will stay motivated, but when this is taken away, the students will most likely slip back into their old ways. I’d like to be optimistic and say that most students in this program will re-dedicate themselves to school, but I’m a realist — it just will not happen. The program has many obvious loopholes. Students seeking a way to earn money could exploit the system by doing worse in school in order to participate in “Learn and Earn.” Who would want to leave a program that pays? For students who simply do not care about academics, a steady flow of income can be more tempting than actually showing academic improvement. Furthermore, the program cannot monitor how the student spends his earnings. There is no way to make sure that the student spends the money positively. The goals of the program seem shallow, and will most likely produce short-term results. The money being thrown at this plan should instead be used to improve the overall environment of the district’s schools. More field trips to interesting places, better school facilities, newer books, better cafeteria food and after-school intramural activities would attract more students to willingly spend time at school. If schools become a more desirable place to be in, students will be more likely to take advantage of the educational opportunities available. Before Fairburn carries this program further, it should consider the message that it is sending out to students: they can be paid to take advantage of a free education. Is it not enough that taxpayers are already funding public education? The educational opportunities are there, and students should want to, not be bribed to, take advantage of them. Building an intrinsic desire to succeed academically is a better, more sustainable approach than material incentives to promote education. Instead of giving these kids money and merely feeding them for a day, we should be bettering their overall learning atmosphere, impressing upon them skills that will feed them for a lifetime. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
to listen.
