Motivation and performance pay for teachers

During this year I have read a lot about motivation, initially as part of a project I was undertaking but also because I find if fascinating understanding what makes us behave the way we do.

Periodically I get a newsletter from Dan Pink, the author of Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us (and another book worth reading called A Whole New Mind). Today’s newsletter included a snippet about motivation and ‘merit pay’ for teachers, specifically looking at whether we should link teacher pay to test scores. I had followed the discussion earlier in the year on this topic and at time Pink had commented the he ‘couldn't see a way to construct a so-called "merit pay" scheme that was good for students, fair to teachers, and consistent with what we know about motivation’.

So when the latest newsletter moved from conjecture to mentioning the results of a 3 year study, the first of its kind to systematically examine the effects of merit pay on student achievement, it had my attention.

The study was conducted in the USA at Vanderbilt University's National Center on Performance Incentives. The purpose of the Centre is to address what it believes is one of the most contested questions in public education:

Do financial incentives for teachers, administrators, and schools affect the quality of teaching and learning?

What did the study find?

Overall, performance bonuses for teachers had no effect on student’s achievement. (p 36)

‘Merit pay’ is currently on the agenda for Australian teachers. I am not a political creature as a rule and this occasion is no different. My interest is in providing information and encouraging people to think, ideally with some soundly based information to start from.

Just because performance based reward systems are common in the workplace, it does not mean they are effective, or that they lead to the desired (or expected) result. Some of the most effective workplaces (in terms of results and staff satisfaction levels) have in place systems that seem at odds with the popular perception of how to get the best out of people.

Perhaps the important thing is to be clear about what we want (or expect) as a result of rewarding teachers (or students for that matter, but that is a topic for another day). If it is ‘better’ teachers, greater commitment to or ongoing development within the profession, that is one thing. If it is to see an increase student’s achievement level that may well be another.

While the Fact Sheet on performance pay for teachers in Australia mentions assessing a teacher’s contribution to the school community, support for other teachers, teamwork, involvement in extra curricular activities and further professional development as well as student achievement, it is easy to see how the media attention generated by the My Schools website might actually give the community the impression that it is all about student results, that better results indicate better teachers.

It strikes me that the ability of any single teacher to ‘add value’ (show improvement in student achievement) might be influenced by all the teachers the child has had previously. A child does not arrive in a new classroom as a clean slate. They bring attitudes, level of engagement, learning habits and patterns of skills that have been built up over time. They also bring the influence of their circumstances outside of school, the family relationships, home environment, the value that is placed on education in their culture or community, and even their economic circumstances.

Some of the best work teachers do isn’t evident straight away.  If merit pay becomes tied to achievement, we might be missing the mark and overlooking some of the best teachers.

If you are intersted you will find the Vanderbilt report here and an Australian report on performance pay for teachers here. This one distinguishes between merit pay, knowledge- and skills-based pay, and professional certification.