Standardized Test Scores
In childhood, children get a candy for a job well done. In school, students get a treat for a job well done. In society, adults get paid with money for a job well done. However, it seems that students are getting paid for getting good grades lately. In states ranging from Texas to Massachusetts, a growing number of students are being rewarded with cash for good grades or test scores on Advanced Placement and SAT exams. Though money is a good incentive for kids to try harder in school, it has more negative effects than positive.
Based on the research by Richard Fryer, an economist at Harvard, has proven that in order for rewards to work they must be immediate and consistent. Compelled on solving if rewarding kids for grades could make a difference in standardized test scores, he created four reward schemes in four different cities for a one year period. The four cities were: New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Dallas. According to the research by Richard Fryer, this is what he did and what he found out: “ New York City: Students were paid for higher standardized test scores. There was no effect on performance.
Chicago: Students were paid for higher grades. Interestingly, attendance records and grades improved, but standardized test scores did not go up. …show more content…
There was only a modest improvement on test scores.
Dallas: Students were paid for each book they read. This reward system provided the greatest benefit. Test scores went up the most with this group.
Why did the Dallas incentive program work the best? It’s because the reward was the most immediate (as compared to others), students knew they’d get the reward, and most importantly, they felt it was in their power to do the task (read the book).” This experiment shows us that It’s unrealistic to expect an underperforming student to miraculously turn their academic career around with the lure of a
Based on the research by Richard Fryer, an economist at Harvard, has proven that in order for rewards to work they must be immediate and consistent. Compelled on solving if rewarding kids for grades could make a difference in standardized test scores, he created four reward schemes in four different cities for a one year period. The four cities were: New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Dallas. According to the research by Richard Fryer, this is what he did and what he found out: “ New York City: Students were paid for higher standardized test scores. There was no effect on performance.
Chicago: Students were paid for higher grades. Interestingly, attendance records and grades improved, but standardized test scores did not go up. …show more content…
There was only a modest improvement on test scores.
Dallas: Students were paid for each book they read. This reward system provided the greatest benefit. Test scores went up the most with this group.
Why did the Dallas incentive program work the best? It’s because the reward was the most immediate (as compared to others), students knew they’d get the reward, and most importantly, they felt it was in their power to do the task (read the book).” This experiment shows us that It’s unrealistic to expect an underperforming student to miraculously turn their academic career around with the lure of a