Secondary Schools should provide cash rewards for student achievement.

This is a topic I feel very strongly about, ever since my former secondary school set up precisely such a system. This is my first debate of 2011, and although the A/R/E format is admittedly foreign to me (and even pro missed out the "E" on his second point), I am extremely excited to get in to it. Definitions=========================Achievement: doing significantly well at a high school event, particularly exams (as the main role of high school is education). To "do significantly well," a student should do objectively very well compared to their peers, rather than subjectively (say, compared to past grades, which are relative to the student). Rebuttals=========================Encourages responsible financial managementWe're dealing with teenagers here. Many teenagers already do work for money (evidence: your nearest McDonald's or supermarket should have at least one). Schools don't just randomly hand out wads of cash to students, but high schoolers want cash, so they work. In the tight global job market, however, not all teenagers find work. How do businesses decide which teenagers to hire? They look to the only thing young people have to show for themselves: their school achievements. Sometimes a few extra-curricular activities get a look in, but let me assure you that every employer will choose a smart, talented kid over a lazy, stupid kid. In other words, the smart kids are already learning how to manage their money responsibly under the status quo. They're earning it, and they're spending it. Giving them more money won't teach them anything. It's the lazy, stupid kids that don't "work with cash" and thus need to be taught fiscal responsibility. If you've got some money to invest, use it to help the struggling kids achieve, not to fund those kids who can already fund themselves. Will increase AttendanceThe reason why my opponent has no evidence for this is that it doesn't. The talented kids usually attend school anyway, so they don't need any extra incentive. The kids without talent will have no extra incentive to attend as they won't be getting the rewards. Teenage kids are not going to be motivated, however, by the thought of rewards they have no hope of receiving. If anything, it will demotivate them that they have no hope of reaping the immediate fruits of their learning - no direct incentive is tied to attendance. Just in case my opponent was thinking of saying that the untalented kids can catch up, just imagine the alternative if you're somebody who isn't very clever: either go to school for four years and hope that you'll beat the kids who have always been smarter than you, or go to your girl/boyfriend's party tomorrow. For most young people the choice is clear. Constructive=========================A: Will affect scholarship eligibilityR: Many universities and corporations offer hardship grants and scholarships (or similar) for students who don't have lots of money but who show promise. Having to declare all these extra school awards will make students less eligible than students from schools which don't have such awards. The harm is not that the students won't attend university (they will) or that they won't be able to afford it now (that's what the cash rewards are for) but that a university scholarship is far more prestigious than a high school award. If students who are more capable and no better off are missing out on these prizes, they are also missing out on future employment opportunities, income and lifestyle - all because their parents sent them to the wrong high school! That's not fair. E: Ever since my former high school began the system, not one of their school leavers has won a university scholarship, despite the fact that they used to win several every year. This is particularly pernicious in this case as the school is almost entirely filled with students from very disadvantaged backgrounds, but even among more wealthy schools, a university will favor a smart kid with no money over a smart kid who's been earning a few thousand from their high school. A: Wrong RewardR: Over here teenagers like to spend money on parties, but if going to the candy bar is what's cool in America right now, I'll run with that. If my opponent's model is instigated, the only real effect you'll see is the share price of Hershey's doubling and student parties sharply increasing, as taxpayer money is redirected to these entirely unproductive pursuits. Rewarding students with book vouchers or similar will provide positive reinforcement, and further encourage their desire to learn. Rewarding students with more candy will give them an excuse to miss class and discourage their desire to learn. Rather than handing out bucket loads of coins to the best of the best (assuming taxpayers are okay with that, and that the health harms of partying all night and eating delicious candy are neglible), why not hand out something that will serve them well for life? That's what school's for, after all. E: Teenagers under the status quo often get their money from work, but clearly are not so emotionally attached to it to not go to the candy bar (as my opponent concedes students often do). I don't really want to over-complicate this debate as I feel it's a really simple issue, so I'll stop there. I say education has become far too much about the top 1% of students. It's time for the non-achieving 99% of students to get some help. Giving the 1% more money won't actually help them at all. At the very least, using the money to teach them a lesson would be a much better reward. But how can anyone disagree that it's the 99% at the bottom who need help the most? The motion falls.