Should children be rewarded with money for doing well at school?

Of all the unworkable, pie-in-the-sky ideas I've heard, this is one of the best.

This is hardcore early-Blair type stuff. Give free money to those that do well - but also those that don't even though it's impossible to measure -- ah what the hell, just give it to everyone at crazy cost and then everyone will hate the Tories when they get rid of it for being a dumb idea in the first place.

Of all the unworkable, pie-in-the-sky ideas I've heard, this is one of the best.

This is hardcore early-Blair type stuff. Give free money to those that do well - but also those that don't even though it's impossible to measure -- ah what the hell, just give it to everyone at crazy cost and then everyone will hate the Tories when they get rid of it for being a dumb idea in the first place.

This is my thought as well. It simply is not the state's place to do this. If you want to bung your kids a reward/bribe then great. Expecting the taxpayer to do it isn't really the way forward.

It's not really a bribe, it's a reward.

Think how many kids throw their lives away starting at secondary school and how they might actually try to focus, learn and behave themselves if there was a little money incentive on the line? Yes the cost is obviously the biggest concern but I think so many of the bad kids would actually change their attitude to school if they could get some money.

There is a correlation between misbehaved children at school coming from disadvantaged families so the money aspect may incentivise them to focus instead of just messing around and screwing their education up.

A small monetary incentive for children in secondary school who do well at school could really help motivate kids to try their best at school. Not just in competency but for being well behaved as well.

It doesn't have to be much, something like £20 - £40 a month depending on what year you're in and is only given at the end of each month for students which meet behavioural and academic requirements. With the obvious exception for children who are just not very smart but they are clearly trying their best.

This is in essence both a reward for good students and a punishment for bad students.

How many kids are there in secondary school at the moment? Probably like five million? Assuming 90% of children would receive the payment this would be about £1.8billion a year.

It would certainly give disadvantaged children who don't have much money from parents the means to purchase school equipment, trainers, clothes etc and just generally have some money.

What do you think?

I think parents should be responsible for rewarding their children not just tax money. Not everyone has children. People would find ways to cheat the system.
Although schools need to focus more on rewarding good behaviour and academics, just not by giving away money.

Then poor little Timmy gets beat by his alcoholic dad every month for not bringing home £20. :'(

It's not really a bribe, it's a reward.

Think how many kids throw their lives away starting at secondary school and how they might actually try to focus, learn and behave themselves if there was a little money incentive on the line? Yes the cost is obviously the biggest concern but I think so many of the bad kids would actually change their attitude to school if they could get some money.

There is a correlation between misbehaved children at school coming from disadvantaged families so the money aspect may incentivise them to focus instead of just messing around and screwing their education up.

Just 10 seconds thought would put to bed what a bad idea this would be. The intentions might be good, but it's impossible to administer in a sane way.

First off - would it be universal? Would it apply to all secondary students, or just those at state schools?

Second - would it be means tested?

If it's universal and not means tested, it just means you are giving money to a large number of already wealthy people. If it's not - then it's going to be an utter nightmare to administer.

Third - without any shadow of a doubt, this would almost immediately cease to be a reward and turn into an entitlement. Every time a pupil doesn't receive a payment you can guarantee they will be appealing over it and making a huge fuss about how teachers are stealing from them. Half of TSR would be kids crying about mitigating circumstances and how their hamster died so they didn't get their £20.

Fourth - How would you measure who should or should not receive this payment? Would there be monthly testing or would there just be a box that a teacher ticks? How many ticks do you need to receive the payment?

Fifth - this isn't going to cost (pupils x money). There's going to have to be an entire government department devoted to administering this payment - probably hundreds of people and an expensive intergration of IT.

I got £25 for having 5 years of 100% attendance at the end of year 11, so I think it's great .

You make some good points, it was just a thought anyway.

I think is a halfway good idea. It has major ups and major downs.

5 YEARS 100% ATTENDANCE! O_O how the...did you not get sick once and need to stay off school or go to the doctors? :O

I'm not sure how workable it would be in mass scale though. And it does discriminate against those who have to go to hospital appointments etc. frequently, meaning they can't get the rewards, which would make them feel even more excluded.

I also think that a lot of students who would come under the category of "badly behaved" actually wouldn't care. Many of their parents do not care, and provide them with infinite money to do what they wish with. So while it might help some who are more borderline and mess around for attention, but care about money more than attention as they can show off with their "wealth", I suspect it wouldn't make a significant difference.
So I like the idea on a personal level, but I suspect it wouldn't be sensible on a larger scale or especially tackle the issues it would be targeting.