One of the reasons for the Denver teachers’ strike is opposition to ProComp, the city’s merit pay plan.
i researched merit pay for teachers, stretching back to the 1920s. It always failed.
But it never dies. A zombie idea.
Andrea Gabor explains here why Merit Pay and bonuses fail in both business and education.
She begins:
“Fourteen years ago, Denver public schools embarked on what was hailed as “the most ambitious teacher compensation plan ever attempted.” It was thoughtfully planned, following a years-long pilot program. It won approval from teachers, businesses, local philanthropies and voters.
“Yet, somewhat prophetically, a 2005 study of the pilot program on which the Denver incentive-compensation model was based declared that it “demonstrates why, even with thoughtful pilot leadership and broad support, a strict pay for performance system — where performance is defined as student achievement — is an inappropriate model for education.””
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think that by and large teachers are not motivated by money (and there is scads of research about what motivates intellectual workers to support that). I think teaching attracts people who do not want to fight for their position in a hierarchy or on a salary basis. What motivates teachers is the challenge of the job. Lack of adequate salary is a disincentive, but trying to maximize income is a guaranteed “meh” for teachers. If that were a motivation, they wouldn’t have entered the teaching profession in the first place. (Teachers are widely viewed as being under paid … and now under valued.)
Your understanding of this issue argues for teachers ALONE being allowed to decide how to run schools — outsiders keep stepping up, posturing and fussing and telling the nation what teachers want and how to ‘motivate’ teachers through rules and pay and prescriptions, but teachers know how far, far off the mark the game has gone.
Also a good reason for encouraging longtime teachers to take admin credentials, & promoting from within.
Merit pay is the go-to strategy for sadists.
Raj Chetty wrote in 2014 about 5 factors that influence economic mobility. Four of the 5 relate to the effects of poverty so, Bill Gates selected and identified the fifth discrete variable for his billion dollar spending. The school variable provided opportunity for his natural inclination to exploit, “….(school ) brands on a large scale”.
Gates opposes increases to minimum wage and, he prefers regressive consumption taxes rather than income taxes so, of course he would target middle class and poor schools and the result of his spending would be, the community’s impoverishment.
Raj Chetty works for the harvard think tank with students.
Chetty works for the harvard think tank with students.
the reasons for the failure of merit pay are so numerous that it cannot be briefly stated, nonwithstanding a really good attempt by Steve above. It strikes me that the acceptance of this idea by Republican leaders like Lamar Alexander, who instituted a layered pay system here in Tennessee that was a demonstrable failure, is proof of a lack of good faith on the part of political leadership. There are some really smart men in public office. Don’t they know how horribly the idea of merit pay has failed? They must know. So it seems to me they are hoping that the voting public will be led by the platitude that better people deserve higher pay.
It wouldn’t surprise me if even very smart people in office knew little of the ins & out of merit pay. We expect Congress to consult people in the field, call hearings etc when developing legislation. This says more about the source of the “expert” input. Which harks back to the usual problem these days: policy is driven by big money. When it comes to ed, the problems and proposed solutions are framed by Koch/ Walton/ Broad/ Gates-funded orgs.
Many teachers complain (justifiably) that they are under-compensated. I would think that any plan to increase teacher pay, would be looked upon favorably.
In government (I have 12 years of federal service), superior employees are often promoted and/or given “step increases” in their pay.
The idea in principle, of rewarding superior teachers with additional compensation, seems to be reasonable to me.
The problems seems to be in developing a metric, to determine who should receive the bonuses.
No, Charles. I have researched the history of merit pay in education. The first such plan was 1925. It failed. Every other merit plan since then has failed. Teachers have different strengths and weaknesses. They don’t like to compete against one another for dollars. Why don’t you read my chapter on merit pay in “The Death and Life of the Great American School System?”
How are you certain that “teachers” don’t like to compete against one another? Don’t most people want to do their best at their jobs, and work towards self-improvement?
I would think that there are many teachers in the USA, who would look favorably on financial rewards for excellence.
Please read Edward Deci, “Why We Do What We do”
Charles: “How are you certain that “teachers” don’t like to compete against one another?”
Teachers DO NOT want to compete against one another. They want time to meet with their peers and plan together.
Anyone who gets a merit pay would be scorned. Who is qualified to decide who gets these bonuses? Nobody. The principal doesn’t need more people hating him or her.
We work together and that doesn’t fit the business style. It’s why all this business c**p doesn’t work in schools. Standardized testing is a failure and so is merit pay.
I am going to have to defer to the professional educators on this topic. Trying to figure out who deserves a bonus, or additional pay, is like trying to figure out which brick holds up a wall.
As I stated, the difficulty lies in developing a metric.
I know enough about the profession of teaching, to know that no one goes into it for the money.
I still believe that no person should have to take a vow of poverty, in order to become a teacher.
Still, in some professions, bonuses and financial awards have a place.
Try reading about the issue, Charles. It’s fine to have an opinion but inform yourself first.
For pity’s sake, Chuck, there is abundant research on merit pay and why it fails. Read it before coming here to air your ignorance. In addition to Diane’s book, read Alfie Kohn for a broader perspective across industries. Punished by Rewards is a good place to start.
The Kohn book, is about incentives for students to learn. It is interesting, but it does not necessarily extrapolate to incentivizing teachers.
I am reminded of a story I heard about Alfred Hitchcock. Hitch was a great movie director, but he hated working with actors.
Once an actress asked Hitch, in preparation for a part : “What’s my motivation?” Hitch replied “YOUR PAYCHECK!”
“The Kohn book, is about incentives for students to learn.”
Haven’t read it, have you? It covers rewards in a wide context of situations, including employment. Please do your research before embarrassing yourself.
Actually, on second thought, embarrass away!
BTW, any actor who is motivated by only their paycheck is going to make lousy movies. Acting is very hard work.
Charles does not think like a professional. He isn’t driven from within. He only exerts effort if rewards are dangled. It explains why evidence doesn’t convince him.
Tru dat.
How do you know how I think? I realize that people work for both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. If the professional educators have determined that offering incentives and bonuses for excellence, has had no effect on the teaching profession, I can accept their judgement.
I still have an open mind on the subject, and I am enjoying studying more about it.
Read what I suggested, Charles.
When you try a strategy for 100 years and it always fails, what do you do next?
Q When you try a strategy for 100 years and it always fails, what do you do next? END Q
In the case of public schools, you just continue throwing more money at them.
Really, Charles. You think public schools have been failing for 100 years. They educated 90% of the American people. You must have a very low opinion of this nation. I am a graduate of public schools. When I went to school in Houston, only the super-rich went to elite private schools, and the recalcitrant were sent to military schools. Everyone else went to public schools. They were loved and valued.
Charles likes to think that Wall Street built the nation despite its estimated 2% drag on GDP.
Charles rejects the notion that public school students who became employees and entrepreneurs fuel GDP growth.
It’s comforting to Charles to think that without Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump dictating the terms of their wealth accumulation, the United States would be reduced to squalor….oh wait, 1 in 5 American children currently live in poverty.
The limitation of Charles’ intellect is shown when he can only process the opinion that money is wasted when its spent on public education. His mind won’t recognize the fact stated by an employee of a group that collects info. for Gates, when that person reports the data gathered by teachers sits in a box until it is thrown away at the end of the year. (Glassdoor)
I try to inform Charles, I suggest reading, but he only reads rightwing publications
I do not think that ALL public schools have been failing for 100 years. I know that there are many excellent public schools in this nation. I also know that there are many public schools, that are failing to deliver a quality education to their students. (And you know it too).
I am a veteran, and I have served in the Diplomatic service. I have an excellent “opinion” of this nation. I have risked my life, to serve on military contracts in combat zones. Never question my patriotism.
I attended public schools, too. So what?
I do not think that money is “wasted” when it is spent to provide a quality education.
Q I suggest reading, but he only reads rightwing publications END Q
I enjoy your suggestions. But you are wrong if you think that I only read a certain type of publication. I like to sample from a variety of sources. One of my favorites is Rachel Maddow, I just love her show, and I watch it often. I like to keep a hand on what the left is promulgating.
Charles: It would seem that you are in the group of people who can be approached politically on this matter by the platitude that better people deserve better pay. I can see that, because it seems logical on the face of it. Unfortunately, the face of things is not always a solid indicator of reality. One aspect of the matter you got correct is that these is difficulty in developing a metric. This is because the idea of a metric is way more complex than anyone can imagine. Tests are demonstrably absurd. Evaluation rubrics are blueprints for disaster, the path chosen by Lamar Alexander in Tennessee in the 1980s.
You are quite correct. The problem with merit pay is deciding who merits more pay. We should not be surprised. A similar problem arises in business, where it is common for one person to do all the work and a superior in middle management gets increased pay. It is also why Charters and private schools have to contend with constant turnover of staff.
Those who teach generally do it because they prefer to compete as a team, not as individuals. Most teachers I know are not comfortable being the star or the benchwarmer. They want to compete and win as a team. That is the general attitude of teachers I have observed. Perhaps it is this attitude that renders merit pay such a failure.
“The problem with merit pay is deciding who merits more pay.”
Well, not really. The problem is the underlying assumption that some people are better than others based on “performance”. The problem with that is the inherent competition it creates, which in turn creates winners and losers. Since no one wants to be a loser, people will do whatever it takes to be a winner, which inherently forecloses on meaningful collaboration. It essentially turns your co-workers into enemies, like some kind of Hunger Games.
D77: While I do not fundamentally disagree with you, I still think that pay differentiation is problematic because it is difficult to asses who contributes more to the success or failure of some effort. Was it Gregory Peck who made To Kill a Mockingbird a great movie? Was it one of the supporting roles? Maybe it was the zeitgeist. I bet Peck came out the money winner in the matter. But was his day’s work worth more? Who can tell?
“They want to compete and win as a team.”
I did not want to compete at all. Who was I going to compete against? As a special ed teacher, my students did not need to compete against anyone but themselves. I rather think that should apply to teachers as well.
“I did not want to compete at all.”
I agree. Teachers want to work together to do what is best for students. There is no competition. [I worked in schools where there was a split in the faculty. Some were brown nosing the principal. Those schools were not fun to work in.]
Ah, yes, the brown nosers.
Better teaching and planning occurs from a collaborative environment, not a competitive one. For a time my district had “teacher of the year” awards. Overall, teachers disliked feeling like they were in a pageant, not a professional position. It also became a political award. We found that more male, high school teachers that taught in high profile positions like science, music or drama tended to win more. We also noted that lower profile special education, reading, ESL or kindergarten teachers rarely got recognized as the parents of these students were often poorer, less vocal and political.
It needs to be said again that merit pay doesn’t just fail for teachers. It fails every single time it is implemented, in any field, public or private. It’s not just that teachers are so noble that they’re not motivated by money. Everyone can be “motivated” by money, and therein lies the problem. When the way to get money (or more of it) is by competing with your fellow employees to be the “best”, the competition itself ruins cooperation thereby making performance worse. Also, as Alfie Kohn reminds us over and over and over, when we are rewarded for doing something, intrinsic motivation for doing that something falls, so of course performance falls. Not to mention it’s just plain insulting – the message being that you weren’t working your best before, you had to be bribed to do your best by the promise of more money.
Merit pay is designed to provide the illusion of additional compensation. As we know, deciding pay through test scores is an inaccurate estimation of teachers’ work. A better solution is to pay fairly for the work and include steps for experience and/or education.
I would define pay for performance as based on test scores. However, giving extra pay for low income schools is simply a pay for a prescriptive measure. Just as adding pay for five years of teaching experience, or a masters, adding money to low income schools is not based on a performance measure.
Low income schools do not get there pro-rata share of district funds, and experienced teachers. This, I believe, is the elephant in the room the union does not significantly address.
It’s interesting how teachers are always blamed for student failure but never credited with student success. I have never heard a parent proudly state “The teachers got my child into Harvard.”
Test scores are an output not an input. Instruction is an input, as is students attendance, effort, aptitude, understanding of language, nutrition and sleep, nurturing or abusive environment etc. Teachers are not magically able to control those other factors.
The way doctors are rated is also RIGGED. Some doctors won’t take patients who have major health issues. It’s numbers without much needed context.
late
The Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association jointly sponsored the Pay for Performance (PFP) pilot during the 1999-2003 school years. That was the publicity for the program. The plan called for a direct link between student achievement and teacher compensation. In fact, the pilot was planned and developed by the Boston-based Community Training and Assistance Center (CTAC), led by William J. Slotnik, with some meddling and financing by in-state and out-of-state foundations.
The original effort and the interim report, titled, “Pathway to Results: Pay for Performance in Denver” (December 2001), were financed by the Rose Community Foundation, The Sturm Family Foundation, Donnell-Kay Foundation, and The Piton Foundation and an “anonymous donor.”
Pathway to Results… in Denver” glossed over the fact that the initial measures of “teacher effectiveness” were based on ratings of a written assignment prepared by teachers, called a Student Learning Objective (SLO). The SLO writing process required teachers to justify their “targets for learning for a specific group of students, based on prior data for those students.”
The 2004 report on the pilot, Catalyst for Change, is all in favor of pay for performance. It also shows that additional support (and meddling) came from The Broad Foundation, The Daniels Fund, Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation, The Denver Foundation, and The Piton Foundation.
The Catalyst for Change report refused to acknowledge that pay for performance was a bad idea. It was a good ideas but required perfected “alignments” and unending “professional development” for teachers to perfect their writing of SLOs and manage proper selections of their student achievement measures. The report also said: “Special subject teachers, special education teachers, and specialists such as librarians, nurses and counselors need more customized assistance to link their performance to student achievement. (p.144.)” The feasibility of making and direct link between student achievement and these “specials” was dismissed. CTAC has never addressed the fact that about 69% of teachers have job assignments for which there are not standardized tests. The Catalyst for Change report also has some unflattering comments about the role of the philanthropies in the Denver pilot (p. 144 and following).
Gabor’s link to a 2005 study is behind a pay-wall. The author of that study worked for CTAC. You can see how his thinking about the Denver effort evolved and his concerns about merit pay in this 2009 article. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov09/vol67/num03/The-Problem-with-Performance-Pay.aspx
Deep pockets paid for CTAC’s work in Denver and CTAC was the big winner. CTAC was still selling the SLO snake oil in 2014. In July 2014, the State of Maryland Department of Education entered into a contract with WestEd’s Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center and its “partner” CTAC for training in SLOs. https://macc-atwested.org/westeds-mid-atlantic-comprehensive-center-helps-maryland-reach-unprecedented-agreement/
Since then, the flawed SLO process in Maryland has migrated to principal evaluations. The astonishing part of this sham process is evident the following quote from Maryland’s 2018 Principal Evaluation guidebook: “Currently, most school systems use student learning objectives (SLOs) to measure student growth. Research suggests that SLOs may not be valid and reliable measures of performance. As a result, the Office of Leadership Development and School Improvement convened a workgroup to explore alternatives to student growth measures. This guidebook (October 2018) will be revised once new student growth measures are adopted….”Revised student growth measures are expected to be released during the 2019-2020 school year. This guidebook will be updated to reflect the revised measures (p. 4).” In other words, those invalid and unreliable SLO writing assignments will still be used for evaluations. http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/OTPE/PSEL/PrincipalEvaluationGuidebook10312018.pdf
Recall the federal role in promoting Pay for Performance. Grants were part of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), about $1.8 billion total (in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2012). States and districts were to create comprehensive, performance- based compensation systems for teachers and principals, with test scores in math and reading among the performance measures. An unflattering final report on the efficacy of these grants is here https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184004/pdf/20184005.pdf
Ohio is among other states still captured by the SLO scam promoted by CTAC. I wrote about SLOs awhile ago. Chapman, L.H. (2014). The Marketing of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs): 1999-2014. Unpublished manuscript. Retrievable from:http://vamboozled.com/laura-chapman-slos-continued/
Texas school districts are going to rate their own performance
see
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/education/article/More-than-just-STAAR-Texas-districts-get-13620881.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HoustonChronicle_MorningReport#photo-16935977
Yes, highest scores to richest schools.
Make sense?