RSS
Neal is the author of four books and is Professor of Black Pop Culture at Duke University. He is currently a Visiting Scholar at University of Pennsylvania.
Can Paying For Grades Help No Child Left Behind?
By Mark Anthony Neal August 15, 2008 5:14 pm
CNN’s recent “Black in America” captivated a nation still grappling with how race is lived in America. The series featured many of the most prominent “talking heads”—scholars, journalists, college presidents and preachers—in the Black community. If there was one of these figures that stood out, it was Harvard economist Roland Fryer.
Though “Black in America” was short on solutions to all that ails us, it was Fryer who offered up one of the most provocative responses. He suggested that students should be paid for good grades to counter the so-called achievement gap between whites and blacks in schooling.
As the Chief Equity Officer in New York City’s Department of Education, Fryer is in a unique position to make this claim. He has implemented such a plan in several New York City public schools at the behest of Schools Chancellor Joel L. Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Under his program, forth and seventh graders will be paid up to $250.00 and $500.00, respectively, for earning high grades on standardized test.
Why pay our kids to do what is nominally expected of them? Criticism of the program have ranged from “there is no price tag for the love of learning” to “it’s common sense for students to earn good grades in order to better their opportunities in life.”
But common sense doesn’t take into account the realities of life in the era of “No Child Left Behind.”
“No Child Left Behind” legislation, one of the cornerstone’s of George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential platform, links schools’ performance with funding. The most critical component of “No Child Left Behind” is a series of standardized tests that are used to assess teacher productivity and student achievement. Schools that meet required assessment levels can expect continued funding; schools that don’t find themselves scuffling for resources.
While most Americans regardless of race, class and ethnicity are concerned with accountability in our schools, there are real questions as to whether “No Child Left Behind” is actually doing more harm to our children, particularly black children.
Professor Theoni Soublis Smyth, for example, addresses some of these concerns in her recent article “Who is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?” “High stakes testing,” she argues, “is forcing instruction to change from exploratory, lifelong learning to teaching to the test through drill and kill.”
“Tests have turned into the objective of classroom instruction rather than the measure of teaching and learning,” she says. In short, aspects of intuitive learning and critical thinking have been largely replaced by testing drills focused on students achieving the highest grades possible on required standardized exams.
Of course these tests have real implications with regards to the quality of public schools and the ability of our children to be promoted. And what truly can’t be ignored is that we are now witnessing the new reality of public schooling in this country. That reality includes three important shifts.
First, legislators and elected officials are highly motivated to show constituents that they are holding the system accountable. Second, “No Child Left Behind,” is a bottom-line rationale for spending less on public schooling. And finally, in this new era testing has become a multibillion-dollar industry.
Rather than closing the achievement gap, “No Child Less Behind, widens it.
When the smoke clears, it all boils down to test preparation and incentives. More affluent parents have the advantage of being able to pay for tutorial services and other test preparation efforts. Likewise, when their children lack self-motivation, they can provide those incentives in the form of a new Ipod, Nintendo DS, X-Box, or cash. And no one ever begrudges the right for those parents to reward their children for good grades.
However we feel about “pay for grade,” Fryer’s logic cuts to the chase of this new era of American public school education. Simply put, kids across the board—economically disadvantage students in poor schools too—who have real incentives to score better on standardized test will produce better test results.
I, for one, commend Fryer for this attempt to level the playing field. His approach may be troubling. But it’s certainly an innovative approach to address an achievement gap between black and white kids, made even more dramatic because of “No Child Left Behind.”
Mark Anthony Neal is Professor of African-American Studies at Duke University and a Visiting Scholar at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of four books, including the recent New Black Man.
That is silly.Public paying kids for good grades is silly.That is another silly idea to bandaid a problem.
When has Fryer taught and I mean taught all year in a city, esp.,inner city public school? No,I do not mean visiting a classand that he may have taught decades ago. I mean now. All teachers,from Pre-K -12th, need a Paraeducator. That can help greatly with bringing up test scores because the extra adult can assist the teacher in small groups rotations, classroom management by working /watching over with a small group,and in-class tutoring and so much more.
I am a Democrat and because of that I can agree and not agree with the Republicans. I say that because even though I did not agree with Bush and TheRepubs on many things No Child Left Behind was a good basis of a good plan. It has many kinks that need to be addressed.
Neal does not agree with testing for students and teachers.NCLB has changed that for the better .All staff must be qualified for their job under NCLB. You cannot just be a friend/relative/parent helper/and finish high school and be a Paraeducator like 40,30,years ago. They must attend community college and earn an associate's degree. Teachers must be certified. Hey,people in other professions are certified.Teaching is a PROFESSION! Instead of paying students for good grades ,it would make more sense to pay teachers more and all of the staff. You cannot operate the school with out the office staff,cafetria staff and building custodial staff.
Nealwrites about incentives.Well,teadhers and schools have all kinds of in-school incentives for students with good behavior and/orgoodgrades.
Ex.,class pizza parties, eating lunch with the principal,teacher, happy visits to a sibling/realtive or another teacher,extra playtime, popsicle parties,dress down day, name shout out on school wide morning news/announcements, the good grade group limo ride, extra centertime, in classroom movie & popcorn party,working in the office day, etc. TEACHERS,school's PTA's,and grade level budgets pay for that. Don't forget, the teacher's treasure box, snacks, class holiday gifts, a birthday pencils/hat/pin/cert, non-sexual ,off course,personal items like feminine pads/tootpaste/soap, and big prizes for end of 9wks.grades, standardized testing grades that are all bought by the TEACHERS. $60.00 for you buy classroom supplies. Some districts ,schools,may give a little money like $25.00-60.00 per teacherperyearforschoolsupplies..Strings....first the teacher has to buy the items from one of the chosen educator stores and then submit the receipt. Does Fryer know that the TEACHER'S teaching materials are not free. Who do think buys the teaching materials and materials to for homemade teaching items ?THE TEACHER! They spend out of pocket a few hundred a year.Are teachers/principals/office staff/Paraprofessionals are apid for passing their standardized tests,workshops, or classess. NO!!!I KNOW some can get a LITTLE pay or a class paid for but things like that are not for everybody and the strings attached are like ropes around your neck. There is no such thing as free or payment for something. Fryer's plan will drive more people away from the teaching profession.
Parents and students have more rights than the schools as it is.
I'm reluctant to criticize an initiative that might actually work. While I certainly understand the sentiments behind the "joy of learning" critique of paying students for good grades/test scores, is it not accurate that millions of people choose their profession and educate themselves according to how much money they can earn?
This notion that education is good for education's sake and that it is immoral to bring monetary compensation into it is severely problematic. Consider:
1. Teachers are paid to teach. Should they teach children for the "love" and forego compensation? A huge problem with our system is that superior teachers are not reaping the monetary rewards of high performance. Is it immoral to suggest that we should pay teachers more and draw more competent professionals into education?
2. We largely educate people to become employees and provide them with the skills that will be desirable to employers. People who go to college for "the love" of, say, English, sociology or golf management often find that the labor market does not reward their labor of love with incomes that graduates with business or engineering degrees might receive. Does that mean that our nation's universities are immoral?
3. Education is all about outcomes, even the outcome "love of learning." If teachers and school assessed and advanced students on how much they enjoyed the process of learning various subjects/skills, many high-performing students would get Fs and many low-performing students would get As. Why should it matter whether I like a subject as long as I can pass the test and get a decent grade?
Schools are ultimately responsible for producing the right outcomes, not the right attitudes. If the means they use to produce them are ethical (legal) and not harmful, why would paying students for good grades (monetary rewards) be such a bad thing? Should they not reward or recognize achievement with indirectly monetary (like trips) or non-monetary rewards (like books or entry into AP courses)? What's the difference?
If we agree that it is important to achieve certain results then wouldn't it be prudent to use as many ethical methods as possible to do so? After all, every student doesn't learn in the same ways. Why would we pretend like students are motivated by the same rewards and insist that they be non-monetary?
To me, that position says more about the societal view of people in the "caring" professions - teaching, nursing, child care work, certain medical fields of study: That they ought to do it "out of love" and therefore ought not be highly compensated.
Students have enough extrinsic things to motivate them to learn and or behave. Paying tax money to elementary and high school students going too far and is silly.
.
Ya'll need to check the co-author of Bush's NCLB.
(P.S. Senator Ted Kennedy.)
8)
And. So. NCLB has many good points, but there are some areas that need to be changed . Under NCLB,you really do not have Sp.EdClasses.You have pull-outs and inclusion.Kids are not really assigned to a Sp.Ed Class. You have Sp.Ed for Pre-K, .Physical
handicaps. Many students need to be assigned to special ed classrooms because they are mild/moderate,academic or behaviorial problems, or they have mental or emotional special needs.
I disgaree with the premise that we must pay children to behave and learn. Why? Generations past didn't do this, so why should we start now? Primary education is free (for the most part) in the West. In other parts of the world it isn't. It's up to parents to instill the desire to go to school and behave and learn. What else are children going to do, work? We've come a long way from child labour and treating children like miniature adults. It's parents who are responsible for teaching children why they need to go to school (education=future income & success).
Is it because of the materialism of our culture that makes it so? After all, learning, going to school is 'work', but so is household chores. Sure, I got money for cleaning up, but not every day/week. And one is not going to get paid for every little thing they do.
Cetaintly adults don't work for free, but we have lives to maintain. It isn't the same for children.
In my opinion, this is just a cop out. Or rather a ploy to get underforming kids (code: Black males) to behave and perform. Children go to school because they must. It's for their betterment, even if they don't like or understand it.
The students are given treats/prizes/gifts/prilvileges on a daily basis.
This big cash payout is just another way to bribepeople to do what is right and what is expected.
There is or was cash incentives,which are really cash bribes,to get lower income moms to take their kids to get immunizations.Public school nurses often have to send out letters to parents for updated shot records. Alllowincomes have to do is take the kids to the clinics. They have Medicad. Itis free.How hard is it to do this?
If nails and weaves were free with the shots,you would have lines wrapped around the building.
The students are given treats/prizes/gifts/prilvileges on a daily basis.
This big cash payout is just another way to bribepeople to do what is right and what is expected.
The assumption here is that cash prizes will spurn the underperforming to perform up to some kind of standard. What if they simply can't perform decently academically?
Maybe we can give a car to 16yr. high school students who are extrinsically motivated to acheive higher grades and good behavior.
Where does it stop? Then daily treats/points system/cooperative learning/etc. is already in place to motivate students.A big cash payout is silly.Teachers Unions,schools,etc. will not let this go.
To those who can't acheive,well,they won't get a big cash payout.
To those who simply can't achieve,that is why there are daily treats/awards/stickers/prizes/point's scale for prizes,etc. because these
are more attainable.Everybody can always get a chance and can get a chance everyday.These things are more attainable,cheaper,and reasonable.
The students are given treats/prizes/gifts/prilvileges on a daily basis.
This big cash payout is just another way to bribepeople to do what is right and what is expected.
The assumption here is that cash prizes will spurn the underperforming to perform up to some kind of standard. What if they simply can't perform decently academically?
Maybe we can give a car to 16yr. high school students who are extrinsically motivated to acheive higher grades and good behavior.
Where does it stop? Then daily treats/points system/cooperative learning/etc. is already in place to motivate students.A big cash payout is silly.Teachers Unions,schools,etc. will not let this go.
To those who can't acheive,well,they won't get a big cash payout.
To those who simply can't achieve,that is why there are daily treats/awards/stickers/prizes/point's scale for prizes,etc. because these
are more attainable.Everybody can always get a chance and can get a chance everyday.These things are more attainable,cheaper,and reasonable.
Don't you think that if those achievements were working that no one would ever think to add monetary prizes?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Obviously they need to find new ways of motivating kids, in addition to helping their families support these students.
Teacher/union opposition in itself is not a good reason to forego trying something.
Yeah,I have heard of the insainty defintion.
These daily extrinstic motivators do work. For many students, these do work.For many,these do not work.
Why wont't this man, Fryer,come up with the new idea of holding students and famlies accountable?What about smaller class sizes and/or Paraeducators from Pre-K-12th?
There are other ideas other than monetary ones.Students do get scholarships along the way as it is.That is enough.
I agree with you about teachers/unions not being enough to stop this or have a change in things. I was wrong there. They are really do not have that much say in their profession and the system is set up to benefit the students/families. It is really one-sided. There is a system to pay teachers if their students or a high percentage make a certain grade. Merit Pay, I do not agree with either.
The Pay-for-Performance NYC schools experiment: the Social Capital Story
May 15, 2008
Roland Fryer, the up-and-coming Harvard Economics Professor, who at age 30 is on leave as the Chief Equality Officer for the New York City Public Schools, talked yesterday at the Taubman Center on State and Local Government’s Annual Meeting. [Taubman director Ed Glaeser commented on the apparent tension between the words *Chief* and *Equality* in Roland's title, to which Roland noted that he's all in favor of equality as long as he can be the leader!]
Roland has been on a quest to marry economics and social science with how to make a difference in the lives of the very poor. Roland himself comes from a poor family growing up in the South (in Daytona Beach, FL), and to some extent wants to enable more poor kids to achieve what he has. [Fryer noted that his grandmother's sister and her husband, with whom he spent a lot of time. ran a crack ring, and he happened to be at the dog track watching greyhounds when federal agents arrested the two of them. And 8 out of 10 of his closest friends growing up had either died or served time in prison. And he would have gone to jail as he was planning at age 15 to participate with friends in a burglary, but got cold feet and chickened out at the last minute and his friends were all arrested and went to jail.]
His NYC schools experiment aims to marry cutting edge social science (and randomized intervention) with making a difference in these kids’ lives.
The program has a handful of different dimensions including incentive pay for principals, offering cellphones to high school youth who are doing well economically (called *The Million*), paying 4th and 7th graders to take math and reading tests that they were already taking several times a year (with higher pay if they get more right answers on them).
There has always been the most controversy around the *pay for performance* part of the plan, with some principals saying kids should be studying for the love of learning or claiming that when the financial incentive is removed in the future, any patterns of success will disappear. Roland noted that the media (originally negative) has turned positive with support for the plan in the Washington Post, USA Today and a handful of other papers. Interestingly, while white parents on Upper East Side or in Staten Island complaining that the pay-for-performance didn’t respect African Americans and played into stereotypes, there has been no such complaints among African-American parents of students in the pay-for-performance experiment.
Part of the way through the first year, the plan appears to be working for 7th graders, but less so for 4th graders. Roland notes that it is possible that the tests (every 5 weeks) are too far away for the financial incentive to mean as much, or that 4th grade is too young a grade to incent learning, although Roland is likely to try some tweaks to the program in the second year. Moreover, Roland is going to expand the 7th grade program to 8th grade randomizing who continues in the program and who does not (so they can see how the performance of those who do not get the program in the second year compare with those who never got the treatment or those who got it for two years). Among the 7th graders, those who got offered the treatment (pay for performance) were already 1-2 months ahead of their comparable peers after only 1/3 of a year in the program, although gains were higher in math than in verbal skills.
Hearing Roland talk, it was clear (even though he didn’t directly discuss this), the importance of social networks, trust and social capital to his success. He noted for example, that although principals think that they are in charge of these underperforming schools, that it is really probably 20 students who are running the place and his effort aims to change the culture of schools and create a demand-side for learning that can be spread through social networks. It is no accident that as part of *The Million* (his effort to brand student achievement and success), that he gives students state of the art cellphones, since the cellphones promote social networks where Fryer can communicate with the students or send a video (since he has their phone numbers), where teachers can text students about upcoming tests, and where students can spread the excitement of achievement through this program. And he notes that the payment can serve as a valuable foil for legitimzing studying hard; he hears about students claiming that ‘they don’t care about studying, that they are just in it for the money.’ Roland doubts this is true, but it protects them against the charge that African-American kids are “acting white.”
Roland also notes that social networks will play a role in the anticipated higher take-up rate in second year of program. In first year, many students failed to participate. Growing up in a culture and environment where many people couldn’t be trusted, many students thought the program was a scam. But now that students have seen payments deposited in the bank accounts that were automatically set up for them, word-of-mouth is spreading the messages that the program is legitimate.
Roland told a funny story –he has the look of a nerdy African-American with wire rim glasses and a three-piece suit, with a build of someone who might have played football at an earlier age). Yesterday, a group of wide-eyed NYC students had earned a trip to Harvard because of their performance. He asked the group of 7th graders how many of them expected to be professional athletes and 70% of them raised their hands. He then asked them which of them was the best athlete. They pointed to a 6 foot high kid. Roland made the kid a bet; he’d challenge the kid to a 50 yard dash in Harvard Yard. If Roland won, the kids would abandon their goal of professional athletes and focus on making it in academics since they were never going to be professional athletes if the best of them could be beat by a Harvard economics professor. If Roland lost, he’d wear whatever clothes they wanted him to wear for a day (they had decided it would be a frilly pink dress). Luckily for Roland, he won, although he said it was not easy.
Note: all of funding paid for in first year by foundations, with commitment that if the program shows results, NYC will pick up the tab of continuing this going forward.
For a description of Roland see this account by Freakonomics author Steven Dubner in NYT; for some accounts of this program see this NYT article, or “Cellphones as Incentives,” and this entry on “The Million“
He's onto something. If this approach can raise grades and standardized test scores without changing the families/environments these kids are in then I think the burden will be on the opposition to find an approach that is more effective, practical and inexpensive to implement.
An overwhelming number of schools participating in a controversial program that pays kids for good grades saw huge boosts -- up to nearly 40 percentage points higher -- in reading and math scores this year, a Post analysis found.
It'll be interesting to see if the results are sustainable and if there are any hidden drawbacks.
And in others words, this too (paying children to goto school) is part of the REPARATIONS bandwagon! Why is it always the Black kids who must be PAID to behave???
And in others words, this too (paying children to goto school) is part of the REPARATIONS bandwagon! Why is it always the Black kids who must be PAID to behave???
Reparations? That seems like the worst possible way to look at this experiment. If we can pay teachers for superior performance, why not students?
One on hand people say "get it together, stop asking for handouts" and when a private entity comes up with an approach to do just that then it's "see they are always asking for money."
In my view, people want to solve the problem of the B-W achievement gap or they want to posture in some sort of self-righteous stance, be it from the left, right or center.
Please name one suggestion you'd advocate that is 1) feasible 2) effective 3) doesn't require financial rewards (for someone or something) and 4) doesn't require sweeping generational transformation to implement (i.e., giving these kids a different environment e.g. better parents with more money...good luck with making that happen by the next school year I say).
I can guarantee you that countless rich White parents pay their children to perform in school, so to say that (poor) Black students are being singled out here is inaccurate.
And in others words, this too (paying children to goto school) is part of the REPARATIONS bandwagon! Why is it always the Black kids who must be PAID to behave???
Yes Melani. This suggestion was not made for low performing "white" kids in Appalachia. There is an implicit racialism here. Hence discussion of a B-W achievement gap, etc.
sagascend wrote:
Reparations? That seems like the worst possible way to look at this experiment. If we can pay teachers for superior performance, why not students?
One on hand people say "get it together, stop asking for handouts" and when a private entity comes up with an approach to do just that then it's "see they are always asking for money."
Would you also advocate, then, paying wealthy and/or "white" or Asian children for performing even better then they already do? And even if that results in their scoring exponentially higher then the "black" kids do? If not, then how is this not a hand out?
Two even bigger problems with this initiative are that they ignore natural consequences and disregard any consideration for personal responsibility. Just think about it... would we pay drug dealers to stop dealing drugs? Would we pay rapists to stop raping?? The problem with such exclusively economic solutions, even if they work, is that they are concerned only with means and ends. Thus they disregard all external considerations, including ethical ones, outright and entirely.
sagascend wrote:
In my view, people want to solve the problem of the B-W achievement gap or they want to posture in some sort of self-righteous stance, be it from the left, right or center.
I think that some of them might like to see this problem solved in general, but do not see the problem as their fault or as something that they are obligated to do the work or pay to fix for others.
sagascend wrote:
I can guarantee you that countless rich White parents pay their children to perform in school, so to say that (poor) Black students are being singled out here is inaccurate.
Yes, and also there are rich "black" parents who pay their kids to perform and poor "white" parents who don't.
... would we pay drug dealers to stop dealing drugs? Would we pay rapists to stop raping??
Drug-dealing and rape are crimes, poor school performance isn't criminal behavior, so I don't think the analogy works. But, no, I don't think it is a good idea to reward criminal behavior since no one has really come up with an effective deterrent for crime. I have to say, though, if there was strong evidence that paying a rapist not to rape made it safe for me to walk down the street at night, I'd be all for it.
I think it is a good idea to reward achievement. These children have to perform in order to be compensated, whether with praise or cash.
Drug-dealing and rape are crimes, poor school performance isn't criminal behavior,
True.
sagascend wrote:
so I don't think the analogy works. But, no, I don't think it is a good idea to reward criminal behavior since no one has really come up with an effective deterrent for crime.
My point was not to equate the getting of bad grades with the matter of committing a crime. It was just to illustrate that not all incentives are justifiable even if they work.
sagascend wrote:
I have to say, though, if there was strong evidence that paying a rapist not to rape made it safe for me to walk down the street at night, I'd be all for it.
I must admit that I probably would too, if there was such a direct benefit that came out of it. Although, would it not let the rapist off the hook, in a way, as not being responsible for his own actions? Shouldn't he just not rape, and that not be any potential rape victims role to consider?
sagascend wrote:
I think it is a good idea to reward achievement. These children have to perform in order to be compensated, whether with praise or cash.
I agree that they should have praise for doing well, and it is a sad thing that many are not getting it. There are many ways of looking at who is not giving these children what they deserve and who should be considered responsible. I think that there is plenty of blame to go in many directions.
I also think that self-esteem is a serious issue that can effect motivation, and also that guidance is an important factor.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
