Student's Incentive Bank

As of early September, 3000 middle-schoolers across Washington D.C. are being paid for their academic performances. A new program that sets aside 2.7 million dollars has students improving their behavior, attendance, and grades in school. They are working to earn points, given out by teachers. One point is worth $2, and the students can earn up to $100 every two weeks, and a maximum of $1500 a year. The program began early September in D.C. and similar programs have been launched in Chicago and New York.

Is this really the way to close the acheivement gap, as NCLB calls for? I don't believe so. You are giving the students incentives to get better grades, which I believe must work very well, however, for those students who try already and cannot get the grades, this program does nothing for them. In no way does it help to improve their academics. No after-school help is called for, no extra attention is given to them in order to help them receive the money. I think this will most likely motivate some students to do better on their schoolwork and spend more time with it, but I don't believe it is the right approach to take if you're looking to increase student's grades across the board. The program assumes everyone doesn't try their best, and in that assumption, it fails to meet the very real academic needs of some students.

I also feel that the program in itself cannot work very well or fairly. Teachers alone give points to the students, and this in itself is a worry. The teacher could play favorites, or feel sympathy for some students and give them the points regardless of the program requirements. It is too easily subjective. Also, the points are not completely standardized things. Schools can vary their point system according to their own desires for students. If a school wanted to enforce a dress code, they could add that to the point system, and then those students would be receiving points for dressing appropriately, while other school's students receive points based solely on academic performance. It is an unfair judging system.

I agree with creator of the "Capital Gains" program, Roldand G. Fryer Jr., when he says in the article that it is important to show the students short-term and tangible effects of their hard work. This is true, and if the program had an after-school help aspect to it that was designed to help students get to the appropriate academic performance, then I could totally support this. As it is, it is a good incentive, but lacks in its helpfulness to many students. It is an alluring idea, however. I would love to be paid for my academics...but how does that teach students the true meaning of education? Should we really be paying them to learn, or should we encourage them to realize the value of education in itself? Our world is based on the idea that education is the foundation of society, and if students begin viewing it as something they can get paid for, the incentive aspect of it will take over, and true meaning will be lost.