In an attempt to advocate the importance of education among low-income families, New York City officials have sent the wrong message to students, parents and educators when they announced on June 18 details for a program that includes cash incentives for class attendance and academic performance.
The primary role of education in America should be to promote knowledge and skills of use to students so that they may be successful and contributing members of society. Having top bureaucrats setting an agenda of cash incentives both undermines any genuine interest in learning for the sake of attaining knowledge and threatens to replace it with greed as the primary motivating factor.
Paying $25 to a parent for simply attending a parent-teacher conference may promote attendance, but it does not guarantee the parent will fully participate in the meeting or be more active in their child’s education afterward. Instead, it is the responsibility of parents to attend such conferences to address the educational needs of their children, who stand to benefit from better performance in school throughout their lives.
Cash as a form of recognition for academic performance also sends the message to students that their performance in school merits quick money, which is typically not a trend when one attends a university and must pay higher education fees. In theory, cash incentives may promote academic performance in the short-term, but should those cash incentives discontinue at some point, the interest generated by them may also end.
The responsibility of motivating students lies with the parents and teachers, who have the closest and most frequent personal interactions with the students.
They can explain to them that learning how to write essays in school may help them write a school or job application in the future so that they can control their own fate in life.
The American dream of independence and control of one’s future cannot be communicated to a growing student in the form of an envelope from the Department of Education containing $50 for obtaining a library card.
While the city of New York has reportedly raised much of the $53 million needed to fund the program, the money would be better spent by investing in teachers and giving alternative incentives such as school supplies and scholarship grants to ensure that the money is used to promote education.
Paying a student $400 for graduating doesn’t promote any personal investment in education or longevity in the individual pursuit of knowledge.
The program is modeled in part on one in Mexico and also includes cash incentives in areas other than education.
However, the same fundamental problems apply to other areas of society such as health care, where families would receive as much as $50 a month for having health insurance. Paying families to pay for health care seems less efficient than directly subsidizing the health insurance.
If New York City wants to promote education to low-income families, it needs to emphasize the value of education in life, not convey to students the message that they can earn quick cash simply by attending school 95 percent of the time, regardless of performance.
The money that will be used for the program would be better spent on reinvesting directly in the education system itself rather than letting the money be used elsewhere.