The risks of performance pay
The big news coming out of Florida is that the Sunshine State is about to become the first the institutionalize a state-wide performance pay program. As reported in the Washington Post:
Except that's not quite what this pay-for-performance economic system encourages. Rather, there's a subtle but serious difference -- it motivates teachers to strive harder to get their students to have higher test scores. Those are far, far, far from being the same thing. Current standardized, mostly multiple-choice tests are usually, as I hope I've reiterated enough times over the past year, low-level assessments which don't require higher-order thinking skills (Thomas Toch makes this case succinctly in this report). Florida's FCAT is particularly ridiculous (also here and here), but when 15 states have completely MC tests, we're not talking about rigor across the board.
If the tests are not lined up to assess what we want our kids to be learning -- for one monumental thing, critical thinking skills -- then tying pay to performance on those exams is pure folly. There's already too much pressure on teachers to focus purely on the low-level skills in preparation for high-stakes exams (not that such focus does much good, ironically), but now the proposition is to de facto make those low-level skills the singular goal of teachers.
If there was a legitimate method for assessing teachers -- whether via an authentic assessment which requires the full slate of skills we want our students to have, or some other avenue -- then performance-linked pay would make a lot more sense. That's what I mean when I say that I'm not conceptually opposed to the idea. But right now, given the states' relatively primitive data systems and absurdly inadaquate assessments, it seems like an idea who's time has only begun to glimmer on the horizon. Chasing after its mirage is only going to land us with a mouthful of sand.
HIALEAH, Fla. -- A new pay-for-performance program for Florida's teachers will tie raises and bonuses directly to pupils' standardized-test scores beginning next year, marking the first time a state has so closely linked the wages of individual school personnel to their students' exam results.I'm not viscerally opposed to performance pay for teachers, but I'm incredibly wary -- not because I fear the concept, but because I fear the consequence. It's simple psychology that when there's a monetary incentive, people are going to be far more motivated to do what's necessary to achieve that incentive. That's the idea, presumably; teachers will strive harder to teach their students better and have them learn more.The effort, now being adopted by local districts, is viewed as a landmark in the movement to restructure American schools by having them face the same kind of competitive pressures placed on private enterprise, and advocates say it could serve as a national model to replace traditional teacher pay plans that award raises based largely on academic degrees and years of experience.
Except that's not quite what this pay-for-performance economic system encourages. Rather, there's a subtle but serious difference -- it motivates teachers to strive harder to get their students to have higher test scores. Those are far, far, far from being the same thing. Current standardized, mostly multiple-choice tests are usually, as I hope I've reiterated enough times over the past year, low-level assessments which don't require higher-order thinking skills (Thomas Toch makes this case succinctly in this report). Florida's FCAT is particularly ridiculous (also here and here), but when 15 states have completely MC tests, we're not talking about rigor across the board.
If the tests are not lined up to assess what we want our kids to be learning -- for one monumental thing, critical thinking skills -- then tying pay to performance on those exams is pure folly. There's already too much pressure on teachers to focus purely on the low-level skills in preparation for high-stakes exams (not that such focus does much good, ironically), but now the proposition is to de facto make those low-level skills the singular goal of teachers.
If there was a legitimate method for assessing teachers -- whether via an authentic assessment which requires the full slate of skills we want our students to have, or some other avenue -- then performance-linked pay would make a lot more sense. That's what I mean when I say that I'm not conceptually opposed to the idea. But right now, given the states' relatively primitive data systems and absurdly inadaquate assessments, it seems like an idea who's time has only begun to glimmer on the horizon. Chasing after its mirage is only going to land us with a mouthful of sand.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 10:05 AM.
|
