[annywhey]

Honestly, direct pay for attendance would be a great incentive for the poorest demographics. A few dollars can be make-or-break at the margin and even greedy parents that misuse the funds would end up wanting to get the kid showing up and not getting in fights - the bare minimum for a school day to go by undisturbed.

[zo1]

I'd be all for that, as long as there were negative penalties as well. E.g. Disturbing class = no points. Failing homework = no points. Failing test = losing all accumulated points. Failing end of year exams for the subject = lose all money for that subject. I.e. Attendance is only part of the equation, actually fostering learning/growth is what you really want, even if it's semi-artificial. Otherwise you're just making another perverse incentive for kids to keep their butts in the seat and not really engage.

And then further on, only give the money back in the subsequent year, month to month. Make it a long-term commitment with a pay-off.

[philwelch]

The problem with that is that low-income families either plain can't afford, or tend to be completely bad at delaying gratification for long-term rewards.

[zo1]

Agreed. Education by itself and the benefits it gives are very long term, too. So this payment has benefit in that it's a quicker return than plain education and would impact a net amount of people. Perhaps there may even be network effects in that those that are able to plan for this medium-term returns can convince and be examples for those that aren't able to.