Daniel Pink, profiled in a recent Washington Post article
and author of the book “Drive,” claims that merit pay and pay for performance
programs for teachers will not work.
According to Pink’s book, jobs that involve simple straightforward tasks
respond well to rewards, but those that involve judgment and creativity do not.
Pink argues that teaching falls
into the latter category. A
recent study of a pay-for-performance system in Nashville, conducted by Vanderbilt University, seems to support Pink’s
premise. The study examined
teachers in Nashville schools who were offered bonuses of as much as $15,000 to
improve student achievement and found that student test scores for these
teachers were no better than for teachers that did not get merit pay.
What the article fails to address, is that merit pay and pay-for-performance systems actually address two different issues in the teaching
profession. Pay-for-performance, as
a means to incentivize teachers to work harder and produce higher student
achievement is different from the idea of merit pay as a reward for great
teaching. Proponents of merit pay
such as former DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee point out that it is about
“retaining high performers not inspiring mediocre teachers.” Others claim that this is an important
step to helping create a professional culture of high expectations and high
performers.
The new Baltimore Professional Practices and Student
Learning Program (BPPSLP), which abolished the traditional step seniority
increases and replaced it with a merit based system, has to improve student
learning by January 2013 or the contract could revert back to the old system. So the question that comes to mind: Is Baltimore measuring success by the most appropriate standard? Should the point of the new pay system be increasing student achievement or retaining more educators? And if you are a teacher does the new pay system matter as much in the stay or go decision-making process as the quality of professional development or the support of a good principal? As Baltimore pushes forward in its merit pay reforms, one can only hope that the district is giving equal consideration to other critical factors that influence teacher retention.
2 comments:
I think this article posits an important debate between incentive and rewards. Recently, at a staff meeting, my new principal spoke about how we should be motivated to increase test scores because turnaround schools get a bonus of $5,000 if they meet certain state targets. Although we all knew if our school (Booker T) increased test scores that we would receive a bump. The reality is that there are other factors at play with our job performance. When teachers feel undervalued or unsupported, then payments do not matter. Who would not want more pay? However, current trends show that factors such as school climate and culture or leadership could negatively impact teacher performance. I believe incentives are great, but if teachers at turnaround schools do not have the tools to execute effectively, then it is an unfair practice.
Are students & families together ever offered incentives to improve their grades? Not just a better grade or a pizza party, but something substantial and self-confidence building? Like a school day with the Ravens for kids making good grades or improvements, members of whom give them commendations & take pictures with them for their ability to rise a letter grade or something like that? Why is it all on the teacher?
Post a Comment