Paying for Our Future

Cash for Grades Programs:  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly


Perhaps you've heard of this.  In April 2010, Time magazine ran a huge article about the subject which you can read here.  Whether you like the idea or not, we all knew kids in school whose parents would pay them for good grades.  Five dollars for an A, four for a B, and so on and so forth.  Times have changed and the pay scale may have changed, but the concept has not, and some schools are taking the idea and running with it.  These programs, largely privately funded, have ignited the passions of parents and educators on both sides of the issue.  The real question, though, is do they work?

Roland G. Fryer of the Harvard University Department of Economics published his findings in the Quarterly Journal of Economics on Financial Incentives and Student Achievement:  Evidence from Randomized Trials in May of 2011.  Fryer and his group conducted three large randomized experiments in three of the nation's largest school districts:  Dallas, New York City, and Chicago.  Each experiment focused on students in different age groups and had a different target goal.  While the results were mixed, they have certainly illuminated some of the pros and cons of the programs.  Significantly, the schools selected to participate in the experiment were typically low-performing, low-income schools.

Ninth-graders in Chicago were paid every five weeks for their grades in five core classes (math, science, social science, English, and gym).  The pay was significant:  $50 for an A, $35 for a B, $20 for a C, $0 for a D, and $0 for an F.  Additionally, a student who received an F in any one subject in a five-week period also temporarily "lost" any other money earned by passing other classes (so a student who had four A's and an F temporarily forfeited the $200 they earned from their four A's) until the F was made up  in either credit recovery, night school, or summer school.  While the results did not show a significant improvement on student scores on the 10th-grade PLAN test administered at the beginning of the following school year, students who were in the experimental group did on average receive 1.9 more credits than their peers who were not in the treatment group (in Chicago, this is equivalent to passing 1/2 more of a class than their peers).  If you have ever taught in an under-performing school, you realize that this result is somewhat significant.

Second-graders in Dallas were paid $2 for every book they read, up to 20 books per semester.  Students would read the book and would take a computerized quiz to prove that they had read the book.  Each student was only allowed to take the quiz once and required to pass it with a score of 80% or better to receive the $2.  At the end of the school year, students were given the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and results indicated that native English speaking students significantly improved their scores in reading comprehension.  Interestingly, it was discovered that these results were not the same in English Language Learners.  Despite the fact that the ELL students read more books than their native-speaking counterparts, they actually performed worse in reading comprehension on their end-of-year test, the Logramos.  Fryer has some interesting theories about what may have caused this, but you'll have to go read his journal article to find out what those theories are (you can find it on pages 14 and 15 in his article).

Finally, 4th and 7th graders in New York City were paid to increase their test scores on ten assessments given throughout the school year.  Six tests were computerized and four were paper and pencil tests.  Fourth graders participating in the study were given $5 for completing the exam and $25 for a perfect score; seventh graders were given $10 for completing the exam and $50 for a perfect score.  Test scores, however, did not reflect any marked change in either math or reading.

Again, Fryer has some interesting thoughts on the results of the NYC and Chicago experiments, including the fact that asking a student (especially those from underprivileged neighborhoods) to simply improve their grades or test scores can be a monumental task, and one that these students don't inherently know how to do.  Perhaps the programs would have been more successful to pay students to complete and turn in their homework everyday, or attend X number of tutoring sessions, etc.

Critics of the Cash for Grades programs point out that we want our children to be intrinsically motivated to learn.  Psychologists warn that all extrinsic reward programs (money, stars, stickers, etc.) will eventually fail once the reward is taken away and there is no motivation to continue the desired the behavior.

I think all parents probably want their child to desire intrinsically to learn and succeed.

Proponents of the programs, however, say that perhaps it is time that we teach our children to view learning as their job.  Mom and Dad go to work and get paid so why shouldn't little Tommy or Suzy?  One junior high Bronx principal said, "We're in competition with the streets.  They can go out there and make $50 illegally any day of the week.  We have to do something to compete with that" (citation here). Perhaps this principal makes a valid point.

Like all programs, there are going to be some students who simply won't play ball.  I have spoken to many parents who tell me desperately that they have tried everything to make their child do better in school--including pay them for grades--to no avail.  I suspect, though, that there are usually deeper issues at work in situations such as these.

As Fryer says in his paper, these rewards programs are not a panacea.  They are not going to "fix" the education system overnight, but our system wasn't broken overnight, either.  Perhaps we should view our Cash for Grades programs as one more small tool we can use to repair a damaged structure.

What's Goin On...

Amongst the many viral videos out there on YouTube, a new one has popped up simply entitled Whats goin on by a 13-year-old named Jonah Mowry.  The video was originally posted right before school started in August.

I don't normally post about YouTube videos, but this one is worth taking a look at by educators and parents alike.  Get your hankies ready.



There is currently an on-going debate on YouTube about whether or not this kid has made up this entire thing as a prank.  If it is a prank, he's got to be in the running for Best Lead Actor in a Short in the next Academy Awards.  Jonah did post an addendum of sorts which you can see here:



 You can decide what you think.

Whether or not his video is a prank, I think it's important to realize that this is the reality for many, many students in our schools everyday.  Regardless of the comments posted on YouTube, anyone who has ever been the focus of bullying realizes that it's not simply a matter of just "toughening up" or "learning to defend yourself".  Besides being hurtful, bullying is emotionally draining.  Young elementary schoolers may not know how to tell their parents or teachers that they're being picked on which will cause the bullying to continue.

The most startling insight into Jonah's video is that he claims the bullying started in first grade and he first cut himself in second grade.  I will admit that this is much earlier than even I expected, and it breaks my heart to think that a seven year old would be in such pain that he mutilated himself to feel better.

Even though Jonah's bullying has been focused on the fact that he is gay, our kids go to school and are bullied for various reasons everyday.   It is not practical to believe that our kids are going to make it all the way through school, kindergarten through twelfth grade, without experiencing bullying at least once.  Our kids should realize that those same differences that are likely to get them bullied are also what make them special, and our children need to learn to value differences in others.  Likewise, it has been my experience that those who are the worst offenders when it comes to bullying are either bullied themselves or have other on-going issues that cause them to lash out.

I have to give props to Jonah.  If this is some sort of hoax, while it might be in poor taste, it has managed to shed some light on the sad, inner feelings of our bullied students which are so much more desperate than we have ever imagined.

Middle Schools: Educating Our Pre-Teens

I was a good student in elementary school.  I didn't have to work hard at it, I just was.  I attended a very small elementary school, and I was fairly popular.  I was comfortable in my elementary school.  I knew who I was, who my friends were, what was going on, and, most importantly, where I was going.

I started middle school in sixth grade.  Suddenly, all of my good friends were ripped away from me and sent to other teams, I was moved to a school with about 1200 other students, assigned a locker, and given a schedule that included changing classes in crowded hallways.  I was devastated.  And I hated the book that we were reading in my reading class (still do, actually).  When grades for my first six weeks as a middle schooler were recorded, my usual A's and B's were replaced with C's, D's, and (gasp) a U.

For those of you unfamiliar with modern-day grade reporting, a U stands for "unsatisfactory" and is the PC way of saying "F".  You find it most commonly in elementary and middle schools.

My mom recognized immediately that there was a problem and we had a heart-to-heart.  From then on, my grades improved generally, but I never did quite get back what I had all ready lost in math.  I have struggled with math off and on since then.

Why do I share this information with you?  A journal article by Guido Schwerdt and Martin West, both of Harvard University, was published this past September.  The article is entitled "The Impact of Alternative Grade Configurations on Student Outcomes through Middle and High School".  In short, what does it mean to your child's long-term educational growth by moving them into middle school in sixth grade versus moving them into middle school at another time or not at all?

Most people in my generation who have attended a public school have probably attended the most popular school model in the United States:  K-5, 6-8, and 9-12.  Students of my parent's generation overwhelmingly attended schools based on the junior high model.  My husband attended a private parochial school so he skipped middle school altogether as his school was a K-8 school.  

Early in American education, most school districts had a single K-8 elementary school and a 9-12 high school.  As more and more parents began sending their children to school, though, many school districts responded by creating junior high schools to accommodate grades 7-9.  It was an interesting experiment in American education, supporters arguing that a junior high school could prepare students for the rigors of high school while maintaining separation from older students.  This, of course, was at a time in American education when a high school diploma was a big deal, and enrollment at American colleges and universities was no where near what it is today.

In the 1960's, however, a reformist group began arguing that students as young as sixth grade (or, in some cases, fifth) had special social, academic, and psychological needs that necessitated separate schooling.  Thus, the junior high was replaced by the middle school, and the middle school model has been the prevailing educational model for going on sixty years now.

But how effective is it?  This was the question that Schwerdt and West sought to investigate, and their results more or less confirm what high school teachers have suspected for a long time.

• Students who attend a K-5 elementary school, have greater statistical gains in math and reading prior to entering middle school compared to their peers who attend K-6, K-8, and K-12 schools.
• However, when those students enter middle school in sixth grade, their math and reading scores drop and this loss follows them through the first two years of high school.
• Students who attend a K-6 elementary school show a similar pattern when they enter seventh grade.
• K-8 students do not show the initial statistical gain that their K-5 peers do, but they tend to overtake and surpass their peers by the eighth grade.
• The sharpest decrease in scores is found in schools located in urban areas (as opposed to suburban or rural areas).  This is not a surprise, but it is probably more closely linked to socioeconomic issues, and less with the transition into middle school. 

My oldest child is three and a-half, and, even though middle school is years away, thinking about sending him to middle school makes me somewhat panicky.  Partially because I remember how miserable my own middle school experience was, but partially because I've always wondered why school districts thought it was a good idea to cram a bunch of pre-adolescent lunatics into one school together.  Between the hormonal changes taking place, the social upheaval, and the shift in organization and structure, it's no wonder that so many middle school students struggle.  Additionally, more and more policies are making it difficult for middle school teachers to retain those students who truly need it, and middle schoolers are smarter than we give them credit for.  They learn quickly that they can simply not do the work and they will be passed on anyway.  This is what harms them the most when they transition to high school, and it creates behavior problems.

So, what can we do?  As a parent, you obviously need to make the best choice for your family and your budget.  Some students move on to middle school and do exceptionally well.  Your child might be one of those.  This research seems to suggest that there is absolutely no benefit to transitioning a sixth grader into middle school.  If this scares you, then look at your school district's options for charter schools, some of which are K-8.  You might also request to send your child to another elementary school in the district that is a  K-8 school.  This will probably mean that you have to take your child to school yourself, but that might be a small price to pay.  If you can afford it, most private elementary schools are K-8 and may also be a valid option.  

But what if the only option for you is a traditional 6-8 middle school?  It is tempting as a parent to breathe a sigh of relief when our children graduate elementary school and relax ourselves and our interest in school.  After all, by the time they hit middle school, most of them are 11/12 years old; they've been at this school thing for going on seven years.  But I think that the reality is that middle school is the time when our kids need us to be the most involved.  They'll hate you for it, I promise, but I'm not advocating that you become a helicopter parent--just an involved parent.  Join the PTA, chaperone middle school dances or field trips, let your child know that you know what's going on.

As for school districts, maybe it's time we revisited the K-8 model.  Or, at the very least, admitted to ourselves that middle schoolers need more supervision and structure than we like to think they do, and transitioning them more slowly might be the better option if we absolutely must stick with this middle school model.  I don't feel that most 11-year-olds are emotionally equipped to handle the social pressures associated with middle school in addition to the structural and organizational changes that come with it.

It also wouldn't hurt to hire more male middle school teachers.  Pre-teen boys are hitting adolescence and they need good male role models around them.  Sadly, many of them don't have one at home.

Let's do our best to ensure that our children have a better middle school experience than we did.

If you want to read the full-text of "The Impact of Alternative Grade Configurations on Student Outcomes through Middle and High School", you can read it here:  http://www.edweek.org/media/gradeconfiguration-13structure.pdf  It's a little math heavy, but there are tons of figures, and the authors do a pretty good job of explaining their results and examining their methods.