No merit in merit pay for teachers

[proud2BlibKansan]

At wit's end over the tortoise pace of school reform, taxpayers constitute a perfect audience for self-styled reformers who claim to have the solution for failing schools. The latest panacea being peddled by these modern-day Elmer Gantrys is merit pay for teachers.

The pitch is straightforward: education is no different from any other policy area in what shapes behaviour. Paying teachers strictly on the basis of their classroom performance will result in positive outcomes for students.

But a working paper (pdf) just released by Harvard University economist Roland G Fryer flatly contradicts the argument. In a randomised trial in more than 200 New York City public schools, he found "no evidence that teacher incentives increase student performance, attendance or graduation". On the contrary, Fryer reported that teacher incentives may actually decrease student achievement, especially in larger schools.

It is tempting for teachers to gloat because they have long maintained that such strategies would do little, if anything, to alter outcomes. A quick rewind through history explains why they were right.

Pay-for-performance began in England in about 1710, when salaries were based on test scores in reading, writing and arithmetic. The rationale was that it would help keep students from poor families in school, where they could learn the basics. The plan became part of the Revised Education Code in 1862, and remained on the books for more than 30 years.

more . . . http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/27/schools-teaching

[dkf]

1. What is the argument for raising teachers salaries then?

[Lyric]

3. That they perform a valuable public service

that's worth much more than what we pay them for it?

:shrug:

[dkf]

5. If we paid them for their actual hours worked equivalent to a policeman or fireman's salary

Wouldn't their salaries be decreased due to less hours worked?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Disagree.

I think that the state has a duty to be as parsimonious with the taxpayer's money as possible.

Teachers - like everyone else - should be paid the precise minimum amount necessary to persuade a sufficient number of sufficiently competent people to teach.

I think there's a strong case to be made for raising salaries for teachers in the US, but it's based on the fact that at present, while there are enough people volunteering to teach for the offered wage, there are probably not enough intelligent and well-trained people volunteering to teach for the offered wage, and the turnover is probably too high.

But any case for raising teachers salary should be based on the concrete "we will get better-quality teaching as a result", not on abstract notions of worth.

Public services are there for the consumers, not as a source of employment.

[MadHound]

8. Then you would be willing to raise starting teachers' pay to around $100,000?

Because that is what the starting teachers in the top public education systems, Finland, Japan, are getting paid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. +1

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Probably not, no.

I don't think that the the amount paid to teachers in Finland and Japan is a good way of calculating the amount necessary to recruit a sufficient number of sufficiently competent teachers in the USA.

The obvious way to do that would be to raise starting teachers' salary a small amount, wait a couple of years and see what changes, keep doing this until you reach a point where you aren't seeing enough improvement in outcome to justify the additional expenditure, and then reduce it back to the amount it was two years ago and keep it there.

[ReggieVeggie]

12. merit pay

:thumbsdown:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Merit pay is a great idea if you can measure merit.

If there is a good way of measuring the things you want your employees to do, paying them according to that measurement is a great idea.

I'm sceptical of its applicability to teachers, because I think that some parts of what one wants teachers to do are easier to measure than others, and if you reward improved performance in some parts of the job but not others then the parts you don't reward get neglected.

But for jobs where outcome can be measured well, I think merit pay is a perfectly reasonable idea.

[ReggieVeggie]

15. you really can't measure teacher performance by test scores

it's not a cookie cutter

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. It's a valuable part of teacher performance, but only one such.

I think that theoretically incorporating test scores as one part of a merit pay scheme for teachers might work.

The problem is that there are numerous parts of teacher performance that can't be measured; if you provide merit pay for test scores but not for anything else all you get is teaching to the test, and we don't have tests that measure everything that needs teaching.

Also, an awful lot of pay for test scores involves things like "reward for each pupil who gets 75% or better, which incentivises the teacher to ignore pupils who aren't close to the 75% boundary".

So I wouldn't absolutely rule out linking teacher pay to test scores in theory, but there are lot of problems that would need to be solved first, and I certainly can't see any solutions to them.

(I suppose "Come up with a test that really does measure everything you want pupils to get out of education" would be a solution, but I don't think that's feasible).

[ReggieVeggie]

17. it's not a good idea, period

it's not a valid measurement of the time, energy, and effort every teacher puts into every student

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I agree that it's not a good idea, but not about the reasons.

I think that if you are going to have differential pay, you want to pay according to results rather than to effort - someone who effortlessly gets good results from five minutes work should be paid more than someone who sweats their heart out without achieving anything - not because it's fairer, but because results are what needs to be incentivised.

The reason I don't think that merit pay for teachers is a good idea is that you can't reliably measure results, and so rather than incentivising teachers to do good work, it would distort their incentives and encourage them not to bother with anything except test scores.

[ReggieVeggie]

22. what a simple-minded perspective you have

Teachers must all be knuckle-dragging grunts who only care about themselves. Good job.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. I'm always amazed by the number of would-be telepaths on the internet. N.T.

[madfloridian]

18. I have an idea. Let's let Bill Gates do it.

What do you think about that?

Oh, wait. He is already. I forgot.

:evilgrin:

I just love it when everyone knows all about teaching but those of us who did/do it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. What's the argument for raising any public servant's salary?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. That you'll get more good-quality volunteers to do the job.

If you already have enough sufficiently able people willing to do the job for the offered wage, it shouldn't be raised.

If you don't, it should.

[madfloridian]

19. You are recommending just getting volunteers to teach? If they are smart enough?

:rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Yes, I'm opposed to the conscription of teachers. N.T.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. The last line of that article is priceless.

"It's highly unlikely, however, that the evidence amassed over the years will finally put an end to teacher incentive plans. Educational outsiders have the luxury of not having to live with the consequences of their delusions."

Ain't it the truth that people who don't teach think they know it all.

Talk to experienced teachers, you will find that even they have had good years and bad years. They may merit bonuses or raises in one year, not because they are a different teacher, but because of the dynamics of the students in their classes. The next year, everything seems to fall apart, again because of the student mix.

If you start paying teachers only based on improvements over the year, who will teach the students who are not able to improve beyond a certain point? Teachers who get the best students will be the only ones who stay in education because the rest will languish with the same pay year after year. Fair?

[Wounded Bear]

11. Merit pay for teachers.....

sounds like a great way to institute runaway grade inflation.

[Starry Messenger]

14. k&r