Should we pay kids to go to school?

It would not educate or train these children. Children have to be motivated to learn for the sake of learning something.

On second thoughts , an initial inducement such as money could get them into the school. After the children were actually on the school premises it would be the teachers' job to motivate them----and that is another question that it is educators' job to deal with.

My understanding of the benefits system is very basic, but my understanding is that if a family receives benefits for a teenager, she, or he, must be in some form of education.
I could be wrong, and would welcome input from someone who has a better grasp of the system than me, but if this is correct, then, in some way, we do already.

The OP writes she’s in Baltimore, so I assume any benefit system is very different from here in the UK.

In many of the South Pacific nations the children regard it as an absolute privilege to receive an education. That is how it should be. They learn eagerly and willingly under often very basic conditions and when I hear of kids just throwing their chances away and the ingratitude it makes me really angry.

I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of pocket money style system but I think it should be based on behaviour and attendance, not academic achievement.

My local council (Scotland) have given a benefit to children choosing to stay in education after 16 as it was recognised that education would benefit them. There are rules though, such as attendance and behaviour before they get any money.

No.

There should be more vocational training offered.

Georgesgran

The OP writes she’s in Baltimore, so I assume any benefit system is very different from here in the UK.

I think the whole education system in the USA is very different from the UK. I believe it even varies from state to state.

On that basis, I am not sure I understand what the OP is proposing let alone whether it would work or not in Baltimore.

No it’s up to the parents to make sure they go- maybe fine the parents if the kids don’t attend!

Grandmabatty

My local council (Scotland) have given a benefit to children choosing to stay in education after 16 as it was recognised that education would benefit them. There are rules though, such as attendance and behaviour before they get any money.

This is the Scottish Government's Education Maintenance Allowance that is administered by local councils (applies in Wales and NI too). In England students can apply for an Educational Bursary which is administered by their school or college. Both are available for 16-19 year olds.

Thanks OldFrill. I couldn't remember what it was called!

In the 80s I taught in an FE college (ie 16+) and parents got some sort of benefit if the students were in education. They had to attend 70% of the time to qualify I think.

It is true that we had to motivate them, which was hard work at times (the college was in a deprived area) but the compulsory nature of it helped, as the ones who wanted to learn could attend without being mocked by their peers, as they could say they were only going so their mums would get paid, which gave them at least something of a 'man of the house' feeling.

I don't know if the benefit system does similar now, or even if CB is paid for older teens, but I can see some advantages to having a financial incentive. I would want it to be universal (ie not means tested), and I think I would want it to be paid to the parents, as their pressure really did make a difference. IME many weren't motivated to encourage education particularly- they would have preferred their children to be earning a living at 16 - but given the deprivation of Thatcher's Britain that was something of a pipe dream, and they needed the money. A lot of that generation was written off, but at least having a clutch of GCSEs would have helped when things got better in the 90s.

Keeping all children in full-time education after the age of 16 was a mistake. Being able to work and earn their own money was sufficient incentive for many 'children' (16-18) to go to work, grow up quickly and become responsible. Some actually enjoyed it.They were also in the world of adults who wouldn't put up with the nonsense they dish out to their parents.

nanna8

In many of the South Pacific nations the children regard it as an absolute privilege to receive an education. That is how it should be. They learn eagerly and willingly under often very basic conditions and when I hear of kids just throwing their chances away and the ingratitude it makes me really angry.

Not just the South Pacific. Same is true for most S Asian countries I think.
But it's not the children's fault or difference.It's the culture - you only need a few young cynics sneering at teachers & "swots" (unlsee they're sporting heros) for the class to get disaffected.
I think this could help as parents would be keen to get this money too and could see some sense in their children getting good grades, even if they can't believe it's going to improve the life chances of someone of their background down the line.

No. There should be more vocational training offered.

This! We have a blind spot in this country when it comes to vocational training. For children who are not academic to be locked into an academic curriculum is counter productive. Train them to do something they are interested in, that they can see will be useful to them and make them productive when they leave school.

Doodledog

In the 80s I taught in an FE college (ie 16+) and parents got some sort of benefit if the students were in education. They had to attend 70% of the time to qualify I think.

It is true that we had to motivate them, which was hard work at times (the college was in a deprived area) but the compulsory nature of it helped, as the ones who wanted to learn could attend without being mocked by their peers, as they could say they were only going so their mums would get paid, which gave them at least something of a 'man of the house' feeling.

I don't know if the benefit system does similar now, or even if CB is paid for older teens, but I can see some advantages to having a financial incentive. I would want it to be universal (ie not means tested), and I think I would want it to be paid to the parents, as their pressure really did make a difference. IME many weren't motivated to encourage education particularly- they would have preferred their children to be earning a living at 16 - but given the deprivation of Thatcher's Britain that was something of a pipe dream, and they needed the money. A lot of that generation was written off, but at least having a clutch of GCSEs would have helped when things got better in the 90s.

I too lectured in a FE college in Edinburgh.The vocational studies students tended to be motivated , whereas those students who were on youth employment schemes were hard work to actually teach although as people they were charming.

The ones I taught were resitting GCSEs or taking A levels that weren't on offer in their schools. Some were slightly mature students who were making up for leaving school early, and others just hadn't fitted into the school environment. There were some 'Adult Returners', mainly women who'd had children very young and wanted to go back to the workplace because their husbands were unemployed, and a few men who had joined the Armed Forces when they left school, had served their four years and needed a new direction.

The ones I taught weren't on an employment scheme - maybe it was EMA? There were things like hairdressing and car mechanics in other departments, but the one I was in was a bit like a sixth form for less conventional students. It's all so long ago it's hard to remember, but it was very rewarding, and I missed them when I moved to work in HE, as that was much more predictable.

The amount of money involved was enough to make a difference to struggling families though - particularly as (I assume) Child Benefit will have stopped so their budgets would have taken a hit when the students left school.

As I said, the college was in a deprived area which had lost its industrial base, so there were few alternatives for them - YOP schemes paying buttons or taking/resitting basic exams was about the extent of it. They couldn't claim benefits in their own right, I believe, whereas I think school leavers can do so now? I do remember that we spent a lot of time on attendance registers, and mothers were very keen to let us know if their children were unable to attend so they could get an authorised absence mark, and their money wouldn't be affected.

I'm not saying it was a panacea - actual jobs at the end of it would have been far more impactful - but being in college and getting qualifications was better than hanging about taking drugs, even if for many they were just deferring doing that for a couple of years.

Some definitely benefited from it. Years after I left I came across a chap who had been a GCSE resit student in a senior role in the university I worked in. Many of the women 'Returners' went on to get degrees. That often led to their marriages failing, but they were at last in a position to support their children when it happened, and I'm not saying there was necessarily cause and effect at play.

I taught intensive Scottish Higher English to school leavers who needed that Highers qualification for their chosen career.

I also taught Scottish O-Level Anatomy Physiology and Health to students who needed that for their chosen occupation.

I also taught students who were from YOP (Youth Opportunities Scheme) who sort of had to attend a course.

Allira

No.

There should be more vocational training offered.

This exactly. The French system is better. Pupils can leave school at 15 or 16 to follow vocational training in over 200 different subjects. It's ideal for those students who don't wish to or are unable to follow the academic route.
An added benefit is that due to their training, students are competent in their chosen subjects.

khajihana

I live in Baltimore city, the attendance rate is awful. Crime is pretty rampant in those same neighborhoods. These kids don’t care about education, they just want to be able to provide for themselves and their families. We don’t even need to pay them like through a paycheck. It could be once you graduate, depending on your GPA it could be a graduated bonus system. I know this probably unpopular, but would it work?

How do they imagine they can "provide for themselves and their families" if they lack the basic requirements to get and hold down a job?

Tnose are, literacy, numeracy, and a set of behavioural skills that every employer expects which should be acquired at school ( listening to instructions, paying attention, co=operation, team work, working alone)

Caleo

I taught intensive Scottish Higher English to school leavers who needed that Highers qualification for their chosen career.

I also taught Scottish O-Level Anatomy Physiology and Health to students who needed that for their chosen occupation.

I also taught students who were from YOP (Youth Opportunities Scheme) who sort of had to attend a course.

Did they all get paid for being there?

Caleo

On second thoughts , an initial inducement such as money could get them into the school. After the children were actually on the school premises it would be the teachers' job to motivate them----and that is another question that it is educators' job to deal with.

Absolutely.
There is a wonderful true story film on Netflix that demonstrates how a committed teacher can change children’s lives.
Freedom Writers

Allira

No.

There should be more vocational training offered.

This.