It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Camden Pays Students $100 Each to Not Skip School

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

"Anti-truancy program pays Camden high school students to go to school

The city of Camden will be paying almost 70 high school students $100 each to go to school in the first three weeks of the year.

Funded by a grant that must be used by Sept. 30, the city is trying to fight truancy with a new program called I Can End Truancy (ICE-T),

To receive the promised $100, each of the 66 targeted students must attend classes as well as conflict-resolution and anger-management workshops until Sept. 30."


www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

Has it really come to the point where we have to pay kids to go to school? What purpose could possibly be served by paying kids to go to school, kids who obviously don't want to be there?

Why are they doing it? Because they need to hit the state requirement of 90% attendence and in order to do that, they need to pay the kids to come to school. Why have the state requirement at all? It would be far better for these kids to not go to school and allow the teachers the time to dedicate their efforts on those who want to be there.

If kids do not want to attend school, they should not have to. If they act up in school and destroy the learning environment for those who are looking to get an education, they should be kicked out of school the way they were in the 70s.

If there is a problem with truancy and they believe that truancy is a problem the solution is simple. Pick the kids up and have them spend the time they would have spent in school painting over the graffitti that is all over Camden, pick up school yards and parks and otherwise make going to school a far better option.

Paying these kids to attend school is an admission of the abject failure within our social policy and within the community itself.
edit on Wed Aug 24 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: ex tags




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
hi op
im not suprised
here in the uk
i was in a childrens home in 1989
we were paid 50pence a day to go to school
and promised an outing at the weekend
i see some things have not changed afterall



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
public education is not education, with that said it is pretty ridiculous to give opportunity to those that screw off reminds me of work or perhaps the government in general.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Who cares about good grades, just show up so we can give you some money....... I guess paying these students off is a lot cheaper than losing grants...



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Why not? If it's a waste of these kids times, might as well get paid for it. And if it is not, then they get a chance to learn. They got the grant, let them try it. If it fails to produce lasting results, then they will personally know not to try it again.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Be interesting to see how many of them show up the first school day in October when the spiff runs out.

Kids have no supplies in school and rather than take the dough and make the experience more productive for those who wish to learn, they decide to toss it at a bunch of low-lifes.

Your government in action



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
From the article I assume that these are problem kids. Education is the only way to succeed. If this $6600 wins just 1 child over to get an education it's worth it. Costs a lot more for welfare or prison time.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
From the article I assume that these are problem kids. Education is the only way to succeed. If this $6600 wins just 1 child over to get an education it's worth it. Costs a lot more for welfare or prison time.


You think 3 weeks of education is going to benefit these kids at all?? I could understand a 9 month program that pays $1000 but giving them 100 for 3 weeks isn't going to do squat....



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
You think 3 weeks of education is going to benefit these kids at all?? I could understand a 9 month program that pays $1000 but giving them 100 for 3 weeks isn't going to do squat....


You base this off of what? We're talking 66 different individuals. Maybe if in attendance they find something that piques their interest. Math, drama, modern history, hell, damn near anything. If it keeps even 1 student in school that's $6600 well spent imo. And yes, I was a problem student. It was actually fine arts that kept me coming back for the math, history, socials, etc.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Why don't they try this incentive program . . .Go to School or Join the Army . . . You Pick or We Will and if they fail to attend, ship them off to basic training.

Seems fair but some ACLU lawyer would pry into it and claim it was some sort of discriminatory action against that dreaded disability lazyslobosis

No wonder the world's gone to crud . . .



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoalPoster
Why don't they try this incentive program . . .Go to School or Join the Army . . . You Pick or We Will and if they fail to attend, ship them off to basic training.


Not totally sure but I believe the Selective Service has been out of date for over 35 years. That's what you're talking about, drafting these kids.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 


Thanks for your post I was going to suggest a similar go to school or be drafted attitude but figured it would just turn into an arguement.....



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by GoalPoster
 


Thanks for your post I was going to suggest a similar go to school or be drafted attitude but figured it would just turn into an arguement.....


Please, I prefer debate, not argument. It's been proven that an effective military is one that is volunteer, not forced.

Edit: Secondly, most of these people are too young for military service.
edit on 24-8-2011 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
What's your definition of effective???



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
we civilized countries have become too wealthy. take india for example. any person given the chance for an education jumps on it and works like crazy. they have more honor students in india than the U.S. has students.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I'd make it so it wasn't 'selective'.

We can throw people in jail, we can sentence people to house arrest, we can have people report weekly to parole officers . . . heck we can even give people $100 to attend school.

Surely if we can do all that, we can set up some sort of boot camp thing for kids who feel it is more important to bum around streetcorners than go to school and get an education.

Maybe I'm just a big meanie and kids should decide if they want to attend school or not.

If that's the case, lets make one of the 'qualifiers' for any aid or welfare program to be, at minimum, a GED. That might get them to at least stay in and successfully complete a secondary level education.

Or we can just give them $100 bucks that we all know will be immediately spent on schoolastic endeavors or donated to an appropriate charitable organization.

Ummmmmm-huh. Suuuuuuure . . . .



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
What's your definition of effective???


Well, let's ask Clinton. He wanted to know what the definition of "is" is.


Effective:


someone or something that is effective works well and produces the result that was intended

attractive or impressive, and producing a definite effect


www.onelook.com...

If a child isn't going to show up for school, what makes one think they will show up for Muster? Whoops, AWOL. Now we're going down the path that I said previously. Welfare or jail. That's a lot bigger drain than this endeavor is attempting. Hell, it might work.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoalPoster
We can throw people in jail...


Do you know what the cost of that is? Just under $300/day/inmate. Well, in Canada. I can't see it being much less in the States.
edit on 24-8-2011 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I learned in my teens that whether in love, work, sport or just life in general all one really has to do is show up and you're already head and shoulders above the majority. You dont need to be smart, attractive, skilled or capable in really any way. Just bother to show up and the world is your oyster.

I guess since we're now bribing people just to show up the bar has fallen a notch or two lower.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I hear what you're saying but somehow there has to be some sort of 'come-uppance' for failing to attend school.

Most kids at school age can't see past the next weekend let alone look to their future. With such short-sightedness, how do we get kids to attend school . . . and not just the show up because it's raining out today kind of attendance, but to full-time commmitted education?

Further, tossing $100 at somebody for doing what they ought reasonably be doing has similar negative ramifications down the road . . . when kids who participate in these sorts of programs hit the labor force, will it again be expected that they receive pay for simply showing up for work . . . or have to be bribed to attend work.

What are we teaching our kids through such programs. Maybe this kind of program leads to this.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join