Pay for Performance

If someone offered you $1,000 for getting a five on an Advanced Placement (AP) Exam, would you take it? We certainly would. And if you attend one of 25 low-performing high schools in New York City, now you can. This particular incentive is part of a larger program being implemented in New York City this year under the auspices of Roland Fryer, assistant professor of economics at Harvard. The idea behind the program is to “pay for performance” by monetarily rewarding students who do well on standardized tests. Despite concerns that the program undermines pure academic motives, it is a commendable initiative.

Opponents argue that this program weds the cultivation of knowledge with a market-mentality not fit for the classroom. But in schools where the teachers are underpaid, the classrooms are overcrowded, and students are more focused on earning money for basic necessities than their studies, it is frivolous to cite the destruction of the culture of knowledge as a counterargument to this type of solution. In New York City last year, less than one percent of black students passed an AP test. Given statistics like these, it is hard to argue against any program that strives to increase students’ engagement in their education, especially when it is targeted toward low-income and minority students. This program may not be the most pure solution to underperformance on standardized tests, but it is a pragmatic one.

Every year, an enormous amount of government money is pumped into an educational system that remains in crisis. In New York City, all the money used to back this program has been raised privately, promoting academic achievement without further burdening the state. It is likely that a program that employs market-type solutions for social problems will be easier to “sell” to private donors, individuals, and institutions who might otherwise be opposed to funding programs perceived by many to be inefficient, expensive, and ineffective. Furthermore, the program does not spend money without measurable achievement. Unlike an underperforming teacher or an expenditure on unnecessary supplies, which both represent sunk costs for a school district, here, a student has to perform before money is spent.

Yes, the concept of providing monetary incentives on tests is controversial, but if it works, it will streamline the education system and serve as an invaluable tool in correcting the inequality in academic performance. Students from low-income and minority backgrounds will be given the opportunity to catch up to their peers while also enjoying a direct monetary benefit from studying hard.

Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is a powerful concept. This truth will be revealed, not desecrated, by the fruits that will be borne of these pecuniary rewards.