A headline from the Washington Post: Teacher bonuses not linked to better student performance, study finds. How credible is the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt? Real research or advocacy dressed up as research? (Oh, pardon me. That never happens).Thoughts?
Popularity: 7% [?]
Pretty credible. Survey after survey has shown that teachers aren’t motivated by performance pay. This seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most of the profit driven world, but people usually don’t get into education for financial reasons but for more altruistic ones, so past a point money doesn’t really motivate them. Doing something primarily because it’s meaningful and not because of how you’re paid seems to be a concept that eludes most School CEO’s (they’re not even superintendents anymore, which tells you all you need to know about the corporatization of public education) and self-styled education reformers. Greed hasn’t worked out too well for the U.S. economy for the last 30 years or so, so I’m not really sure why it’s being touted as a panacea to improve public education.
Overall, this group of researchers is extremely reputable. People like Dale Ballou, Laura Hamilton, Daniel McCaffrey, and Brian Stecher are very well known and respected. At first glance (at least), the study looks well designed to probe for the measured outcomes. I also agree with Rick Hanushek’s comment in the article, that the more likely place to find incentive pay working is in teachers’ employment decisions, as opposed to the possible “effort” effects looked for here. That is, this study’s finding is really not very surprising.
I’d want to dig into it more, but it’s probably pretty hard to decipher, as most of the teacher bonus programs are badly designed and do little to link student academic outcomes with any meaningful compensation (ProComp is a keen example of this problem).
However on balance I would not be surprised — the entrenched and systemic problems in the teaching profession (from attraction, evaluation, tenure, transferability, compensation etc.) are unlikely to be solved by a single variable like a performance bonus. I only wish it was that easy.
Ever watch “Undercover Boss”? True, it’s “reality” TV, but it should convince you quickly that in any job, people are motivated by things other than pay. Who wouldn’t like more pay? But do you want someone on your payroll who says “I’m only going to work hard (or well) if you pay me more money”?
Read Daniel Pink’s “Drive”.
While it would be nice if straightforward bonuses motivated harder, smarter work by teachers, HR and compensation evidence from other professions does not suggest that such simple pay for performance plans are likely to work very well.
And, teachers would seem to be less motivated by pay, given their occupational choice, than most professionals.
This is a good research study, from scholars who are not biased one way or another on this issue. However, it is only one study, in one city, with 3 years of data, and the N is OK, but not huge. So, I wouldn’t take it as definitive.
As others have noted, given that there was no professional development or other support, it is hard to understand how the logic model works here, beyond simple Skinnerian/market incentives.
In contrast to Alex Oom’s comments here, I think these findings help make a stronger case for pay for perfornance plans like Denver’s Procomp, where there are multiple incentives, and where helping teachers improve their practice, even as they are incentivized, is part of the deal. While moving student achievement up, fast, is a nice goal, we know that very few things can actually do that, and a broader set of reforms around teacher compensation, that change the nature of the profession, attract new teachers into the profession, reduce the seniority/pay linkage somewhat, are likely to have longer lasting and deeper impacts, and should eventually move student achievement, too.
The problem with the performance pay scheme is that it assumes that I as a teacher am not already giving 100% for my students. Even given a monetary incentive, I could not possibly give more for my students than I am giving under the current system.
In the education profession, we have only ever asked for a living wage in conjunction with the abstract rewards our profession offers.
When proponents of this 21st century snake oil start with the assumption that I am holding back from my students I am offended. I suspect other education professionals feel the same way. This is why performance pay machinations have always been viewed as repugnant.
Read Daniel Pink’s “Drive” when you get a chance. Then, let’s talk about pay for performance. It will be a much more engaging conversation.