Just when you thought that educational entrepreneurs had gone as low as they could go, along comes an app to pay children to study and respond to prompts. Patrick Leddy, the developer of the cash-for-grades app, has previously developed apps for selling custom tailored clothing, financial services, medical devices and cosmetics.
Launching first in the U.S. in December, the cash-for-grades e-learning app Incentify is based on the premise that children will be willing to study or do homework chores they don’t want to do in return for cash or other rewards.
“All of our technology is based on Harvard University studies, which have determined … whether kids responded to incentives and did better in school or not,” said Incentify’s CEO and founder Patrick Leddy. “And sure enough, conclusively, they do respond better to incentives.”
Leddy argues that before engaging with teachers and educational content at school, children need to be motivated to study instead of day dreaming or playing games.
“The classrooms are not at the speed of the children,” he told Techtonics. “The children are the Google generation. So how is it that we expect the kids to run at light speed outside of the school, but when they get in the school, they’ve got to slow down to horse and buggy?”
The Google generation – young people with “instant gratification” at their fingertips – can benefit more from e-learning than a traditional classroom, said Leddy. “We know for a fact that e-learning all by itself teaches a kid faster than teacher, pencil, paper and book.”
Dangling “a carrot” in front of kids to entice them to study is a model Leddy intends to take to other parts of the world to empower girls, in particular, who often are married off at an early age.
Whatever the reason for early marriages, Leddy argued children who earn money while learning are unlikely to be sold off for a dowry.
There are at least two things wrong with this app.
First, the app is based on the work of Harvard economist Roland Fryer, Jr., who has long sought the economic incentive that would lead to higher grades and test scores. His efforts have been funded with millions of dollars. He has paid children for getting higher grades or test scores, and he has paid them to read books. His efforts have come to naught, although children did read more books for pay but they did not get higher test scores or grades. So, the basic claim–that this incentive is effective–has no evidentiary basis.
Second, modern cognitive psychology rejects the belief that rewards will promote better outcomes. The work of Edward Deci, Dan Ariely, and other cognitive psychologists have shown that extrinsic rewards may get short-term results, but they do not last and they eventually undermine motivation. Daniel Pink has written about the importance of their studies (Drive) and why the real spurs to motivation are intrinsic, not extrinsic. It turns out that people are paid to do something that matters, they will stop doing it when the money stops.

“…although children did read more books for pay but they did not get higher test scores or grades.”
And, more to the point, once they stopped getting paid, they never read another book again. It’s well established that rewarding people for doing anything destroys any intrinsic motivation for doing it and, once the rewards stop, so does the behavior. Congrats, Roland, you have created a whole generation of non-readers (which I’m beginning to suspect is actually the goal…).
LikeLike
I guess they’ll have to re-work this poster
Knowledge IS Money!
LikeLike
Can’t wait to hear how Alfie Kohn responds to this one…
LikeLike
He’ll be apoplectic. As am I. Kids NEED to slow down more. They need LESS tech in their lives, especially younger children. They NEED to be playing and inventing and creating.
LikeLike
Last line of the posting: “It turns out that people are paid to do something that matters, they will stop doing it when the money stops.”
If you haven’t read it already, Daniel Pink, DRIVE (2011), is a must read.
I would also add relevant writings by Alfie Kohn and W. Edwards Deming.
😎
LikeLike
https://blog.deming.org/2015/09/alfie-kohn-on-systems-thinking-human-behavior-and-education/
LikeLike
“The classrooms are not at the speed of the children,” he told Techtonics. “The children are the Google generation. So how is it that we expect the kids to run at light speed outside of the school, but when they get in the school, they’ve got to slow down to horse and buggy?”
This is such a ridiculous premise. That they all latched onto it is just embarrassing.
Can these salespeople also stop using a brand name to refer to our children? It’s appalling. We get it- they see a huge captive market. Try not to salivate publicly.
LikeLike
A public school that would buck the trend would be in the headlines – but more importantly would be doing their students a great service – I see it as simply common sense, of which is increasingly hard to find in the education world:
Be different:
1. Remove all computers K-6
2. Require all reports hand written – covers hand drawn rather than a cut and paste / spellcheck / clipart exercise.
3. Learn from the French – working in concert with Phys Ed classes – watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLF-f1RiFS0
4. Learn from Coors!! Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvSyQDu49pI __
5. Refuse any test K-8 -12 given on computer – administer on paper. Tell Mr. Hespe NO to computer testing.
6. Learn from Germany: Translate: “Germany should not follow the example of Finland and the US –“ (regarding keyboarding in the earliest grades) and “The children should not be expected to limit their motor skills under the roof of the school in any way.”
http://www.vbe.de/presse/pressedienste/aktuell/aktuell-detail/article/vbe-handschrift-muss-im-lehrplan-bleiben.html
7. Introduce computers carefully when students have mastered all they can manually – Grade 6 -7 is best. You will find their imagination and creativity using computers at that time will be far greater than those children raised on I-pads, playing computer games, etc. Screens at the youngest age can kill imagination.
David Di Gregorio
Concerned father of an 8 year old and
school administrator
LikeLike
Thank you, David Di Gregorio!
LikeLike
I have two nephews who are going to school in Germany. And you are totally correct. The two boys did have the opportunity, when they were younger, to go to “forest schools.” These are for children in what we would call pre-school and kindergarten. They were outdoors most of the day, they explored, they learned, they played, they built things out of branches and sticks.
As they got older and went to public schools, the public schools in the younger grades only ran, basically, half a day (although the children did have some homework to complete). Their schools did not spend tons of time testing and preparing for those tests, and a lot of the tests they did get involved essays when they were older.
And yet, German children do extremely well on international standards, while also getting to spend a lot of time outdoors and being active, rather than “butts in the seats” at school.
LikeLike
Money often costs too much.
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
LikeLiked by 1 person
The last two paragraphs are key. When a society monetizes everything we are doomed. We see evidence of the damage from this way of thinking on a daily basis. Pay for success has the unintended (or is it?) consequence of motivating individuals to restrict needed services. Performance-based pay in medicine has the unintended (or is it?) consequence of abandoning the most needy patients. How this works in education is the same. In all cases a value is put on people. Some are just not worth the investment. That sounds harsh and not politically correct. However it is not difficult to get there.
You begin with the children and move them from intrinsic to external rewards. Mission accomplished!
LikeLiked by 1 person
About ten years ago we were approached by a local bank. They wanted to set up in schools and “offer” savings accounts. So we asked them if they would still set up without promoting the bank to a captive audience of children- leave the brand off.
We never heard from the again. I guess “financial literacy” didn’t trump their effort to get promotional materials into children’s hands.
“Free” means “free”. Advertising to children who are mandated to be in school is not “free”. That itself is a financial literacy lesson and boy, will this generation need it. They better be pretty savvy if they hope to hang onto to anything they make. Uncovering scams will be a full time job.
LikeLike
BRIBERY to the MAX. Think: Politicians and bribery. Kids being treated like Pavlov’s dog is NOT an education.
LikeLike
An online app that pays kids to study online is the perfect storm for frauds to make money off frauds and/or the fraud behind the app will create bogus students that don’t exist and keep the money meant to pay kids that study online.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed reformer compares all public schools to “used Pintos”:
“Back in the late 1960s, almost every automobile sold in America was built by General Motors, Ford, Chrysler or American Motors (later merged with Chrysler). Then the energy crisis hit in the 1970s, and cheap, reliable Japanese compacts made huge inroads, especially against such junkers as Chevy’s Vega and Ford’s explosion-prone Pinto.”
The open hostility towards public schools inside the ed reform echo chamber is amazing considering the (public, politically useful) claims of being “agnostic”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/schools-718107-charters-students.html?utm_content=33436129&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
LikeLike
Even apart fr/negative LT effects, which would be expected, financial incentives have null results in the vast majority of the Fryer experiments. see http://tinyurl.com/js69l79
“This paper describes a series of school-based field experiments in over 200 urban schools across three cities designed to better understand the impact of financial incentives on student achievement. In Dallas, students were paid to read books. In New York, students were rewarded for performance on interim assessments. In Chicago, students were paid for classroom grades.
I estimate that the impact of financial incentives on state test scores is statistically zero, in each city. …The only statistically significant effect is on English speaking students in Dallas.”
LikeLike
Agree. But the website says: Professor Roland G. Fryer’s Ed Lab at Harvard “works to provide path-breaking research and development in the field of education. The website offers a complete overview of Professor Fryer’s research work.” You and Diane are correct. The guy keeps churning out proofs of no significant results from his “incentive” schemes. He also subscribes to the following theory and keeps trying to offer proofs of it:
“While alleviating poverty in developing countries and eradicating the ills associated with it would require massive and coordinated efforts in public health, education, and labor markets, in this country, significant steps towards reducing poverty can be made by ensuring that all K-12 students receive the same education.”
Yep, carbon copy, same education, one size fits all, and the only things that really matter to this and many economists who try to make a career in education are test scores in reading and math.
Read the full paper on this subject, “Racial Inequality in the 21st Century: The Declining Significance of Discrimination.” Unbelievable claims.
LikeLike
Fryer has never demonstrated the success of any of his incentives
LikeLike
So glad to have Roland “Two-Tier” Fryer on our state board of Education – wonder if he pays his own children to read Shakespeare?
LikeLike
When we awarded children for reading, there were those who developed intrinsic motivation and stopped coming for their rewards and only for the books. So these pay to play ideas work for some in the short term; others need higher and higher rewards which a system cannot provide, or they find a higher reward in something they like doing and stop doing what you are pushing. It isn’t learning you are obtaining in providing rewards. It is temporary action. Even on the computer, if the user fails one time the kid tends to quit that activity, even though they are getting rewarded for getting answers correct. Now if you make the reward necessary as in no food until you get it correct, maybe they will persist. But rewards have to be pretty high!
Why not just pay for good scores on the tests? This has been shown to focus kids to give it their all, or to insult them into deliberately failing.
Better revisit this half-baked idea.
It seems this techie is just another over-confident youngish adult who needs to learn what has been tried and shown to fail.
LikeLike
Take a look at the bio for Patrick Leddy, part of the team behind the “earn money” app. He is a wunderkind, with serial accomplishments as an entrepreneur who is eager to make money by any means. http://incentifyed.com/patrick-leddy-bio/
This “Incentify Education” app is predatory. It is designed to enlist kids and others in a philanthropic feel-good venture that offers “micro-scholarships,” and spreads this app to third-world countries with a load of advertising.
The platform is designed to be a marketing hub for anyone who invests $100,000. This is to say the app is not yet operational but that the entrepreneurs have a timeline for the launch, with lots of promos and a platform for crowdsourcing.
For $100,000 (and up) you can become an “Ivy League Supporter,” (a step down from the Genius package) which means you can: (a) become an official corporate sponsor with logo, (b) be a player in email communications to millions, (c) have your corporate name associated with weekly “Incentify micro-scholarships” given to students who “consistently achieve,” (c) be “showcased as an international visionary of solving world education problems,” and more.
The immediate pitch is that you can buy tiers of participation in launching and sustaining Incentify Education–grade school, middle school, high school, college up through Ph.D and then “genius” and “Ivy League” each level increasing in cost and “benefits to children” in third world countries.
The app is not yet curriculum specific, but free content will be provided. Although the Kahn Academy is one source, there are hundreds of other extremely biased study materials like the Koch Brothers “history” curriculum for North Carolina, in addition to the ad-filled content reported here. http://blog.zwillgen.com/2016/01/06/the-coppa-cop-is-on-the-beat-ftc-brings-cases-for-targeted-ads-in-kids-apps/
The Incentify Education marketing pitch includes this statement: “Students download the free Incentify accelerated learning app, then begin studying using the world’s top e-Learning apps for free, like Khan Academy. Incentify tracks all of the student’s learning progress in order release their pending rewards.”
“Multiple benefactors comprised of corporations, foundations and family members provide cash and gift-card micro-scholarships, deposited directly into the app, for the student to go and spend (just like the Starbucks app). The net effect is students become ultra-motivated to study more, resulting in higher grades and measurably smarter people on the planet!”
This app and the marketing of it is as educational is dispicable. It may habituate children to getting “rewards” for educational activities out of school. It invites them to be online consumers with an app. It also “teaches” adults to add money to the app when the app says the kid deserves it. Meanwhile the entrepeneurs, savvy about the value of the data, will profit from selling their data for a fee, and become participants in marketing consumption internationally as if doing so is beneficial to poor children in other countries.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/incentify-the-world-s-first-cash-for-grades-app – /
LikeLike
As a parent, I prefer this approach:
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article81668307.html
LikeLike
So I guess the applies to doctors, nurses, social workers and….teachers? They will stop “doing it” when the money stops?
LikeLike
Professionals are motivated by idealism, their sense of professional ethics, and professional autonomy. They don’t become better doctors, nurses, social workers, or teachers by offering them a bonus or by threatening to punish them. People need money to live, but most people don’t live solely for rewards.
LikeLike
“We know for a fact that e-learning all by itself teaches a kid faster than teacher, pencil, paper and book.”
Um… evidence, please? Is this statement based on the *stunning results achieved by online charter schools?
LikeLike
That sentence struck me, too, T. Campbell. An example of if you say it with enough conviction (and frequently enough) it will become true.
LikeLike
We can verify the education,” he said. “That’s the whole key of how our app works. We track all of the kids’ learning performance and metrics. And then we reward them based upon their learning. . . .The kids must achieve first. “Nothing transacts until the student has first learned,” he said. “Then the money transacts.”
Silicon snake oil.
I don’t think Leddy even remotely believes this line of crap.
Anyone who knows anything about children realizes that this app would become nothing more than another game, producing jaded kids and zero authentic learning.
LikeLike
““We know for a fact that e-learning all by itself teaches a kid faster than teacher, pencil, paper and book.””
Who are “we”, and what does “know for a fact” mean? What is this fact exactly?
Everything called fact has become fact because of supporting evidence. Before that, it could have been called all kinds of stuff such as assumption, hypothesis or simply bs.
So where can we find the evidence for this fact? Is this the kind of evidence that is available for all to view and study, or is it a mantra kind of evidence ?
LikeLike
Mate,
Important point. This is an entrepreneur saying “buy my stuff because we know for a fact that learning on a computer is far superior to other means.”
He doesn’t know anything for a fact except his bottom line.
LikeLike