I arrived at my school Monday to a site abuzz. Coworkers had heard from teachers at other school sites in the district sharing that on Friday, they had received an email that was going out to “a select group of teachers” in our district, offering them the chance to work in high needs schools. Recipients were directed to a site for the Talent Transfer Initiative, a project from the Department of Education ARRA (stimulus) funding. More information about the background of the program can be found on the site for Mathematica, who will be evaluating this project. Although “priority schools” are not mentioned in the email, it’s pretty clear that in the district, my school in particular (being identified by the state as bottom performing) and the other five priority schools are the “target” school or schools for the program.
Only the district administration knows who these emails went out to, but based on conversations about this, some of the teachers are currently teaching at Title One schools. I hope this means that the district is not just looking at “high scoring” teachers, but for teachers who have been successful in schools with similar demographics.
But, I must say, I am concerned about the general concepts of this program, whoever they choose for it. Why would I, as an educator, be against having the best teachers paid for their work? This is not sour grapes on my part, but is based on a long held belief that I’ve committed to in my public writing. I would be mendacious if I sat out an opportunity to criticize a program like this when it comes to my own district and my own school.
All of my stories on incentives for performance can be found here, and the most pertinent piece I’ve written on this subject is here. I’ll summarize the findings now. The effect of incentive pay is as follows:
- Small incentives increase performance.
- Medium incentives increase performance, but only to the same level you can get with small incentives.
- Large incentives decrease performance.
I think we can all agree that a $20,000 bonus over two years (potentially up to 30% of a teacher’s salary) is a large incentive. I base my assertions on the work of Dan Ariely, who covered this subject in his book, Predictably Irrational. This flies in the face of accepted wisdom, because incentive compensation has been used more and more in recent years. I myself used to do incentive compensation reporting for a very large bank in my prior career. The fact is that how well bonuses and incentives work as motivators is largely assumed, as you can see here from a discussion Ariely had with a bank executive:
When I recently presented these results to a group of banking executives, they assured me that their own work and that of their employees would not follow this pattern. (I pointed out that with the right research budget, and their participation, we could examine this assertion. They weren’t that interested.) But I suspect that they were too quick to discount our results. For most bankers, a multimillion-dollar compensation package could easily be counterproductive. Maybe that will be some comfort to the boards at UBS and Goldman Sachs.
Mr. Ariely went on to describe the conversations he heard among brokers as the end of year close approached. They spent a large amount of time worrying, talking, and otherwise obsessing about their potential bonus, and their productivity declined as a result. Imagine a staff room during testing where the teachers are more worried about their bonus, than the fact that their students are homeless, or their mother is using, or their dad is in prison and you see where this can lead.
Does that mean things need to stay the same, and all teaching jobs should be “equal”? No, I think there are a number of ways that you could give teachers incentives that would not be as potentially problematic as big bonuses. Giving incentive pay to teachers based on test scores focuses on them changing an “output” (student test scores) which is much harder to affect, than an input (ex. paying for extra duty time tutoring). Here are some “incentives” that I’ve already suggested for the Priority Schools to the Superintendent:
- Lower class-size: CSR will continue to be compromised in the rest of the district, you could use the money to guarantee 15 -1 K-2; 20-1 in Third, and 25-1 in 4-6; and Oak Ridge would become more attractive. This has been done at QEIA schools already.
- An extended day or year with higher salary could be attractive to some.
- More prep and collaboration time. This would allow you to extend the day, while giving teacher collaboration and preparation time and could be a big incentive.
- Professional support services: a full time nurse, social worker, psychologist, extra RSP services to support RTI, or resource teachers.
Some modest duty pay would not be inappropriate (because small and moderate incentives can improve performance), but $20,000 would just be buying trouble in my opinion.
Links:
Well, that’s one way to take care of staffing at the Priority Schools… « SCUSD Observer
What Really Happens When We Pay People for Test Scores? | LFA: Join The Conversation – Public School Insights
Room at the Top for Test Scores? | Public Agenda
Blogging Innovation: Do Rewards Kill Innovation and Creativity? – Latest innovation articles, videos, and insights
Dan Ariely Takes on ‘Irrational’ Economic Impulses : NPR
Op-Ed Contributor – What’s the Value of a Big Bonus? – NYTimes.com
Concerns & Questions About The “Talent Transfer Initiative” Larry Ferlazzo
I arrived at my school Monday to a site abuzz. Coworkers had heard from teachers at other school sites in the district sharing that
on Friday, they had received
an email that was going out to “a select group of teachers” in our district, offering them the chance to work in high needs schools. Recipients were directed to a site for the
Talent Transfer Initiative, a project from the Department of Education ARRA (stimulus) funding. More information about the background of the program can be found on the site for
Mathematica, who will be evaluating this project. Although “priority schools” are not mentioned in the email, it’s pretty clear that in the district, my school in particular (being identified by the state as bottom performing) and the other five priority schools are the “target” school or schools for the program.
Only the district administration knows who these emails went out to, but based on conversations about this, some of the teachers are currently teaching at Title One schools. I commend the district for having the sense to not just look at “high scoring” teachers, but to look for teachers who have been successful in schools with similar demographics. Strangely, some teachers who would seem to qualify for this email from out site, were not included in the mailing. That would likely be because the program explicitly excludes teachers that are already working in targeted schools. But, this is minor compared to my larger concern about offering such a large and out-sized reward for teachers to work in these schools.
Why would I, as an educator, be against having the best teachers paid for their work? This is not merely sour grapes on my part, but is based on a long held belief that I’ve committed to in my public writing. I would be mendacious if I sat out an opportunity to criticize a program like this when it comes to my own district.
All of my stories on incentives for performance can be found here, and the most pertinent piece I’ve written on this subject is here. I’ll summarize the findings now. The effect of incentive pay is as follows:
- Small incentives increase performance.
- Medium incentives increase performance, but only to the same level you can get with small incentives.
- Large incentives decrease performance.
I think we can all agree that a $20,000 bonus over two years (potentially up to 30% of a teacher’s salary) is a large incentive. I base my assertions on the work of Dan Ariely, who covered this subject in his book, Predictably Irrational. This flies in the face of accepted wisdom, because incentive compensation has been used more and more in recent years. I myself used to do incentive compensation reporting for a very large bank in my prior career. The fact is that how well bonuses and incentives work as motivators is largely assumed, as you can see here from a discussion Ariely had with a bank executive:
When I recently presented these results to a group of banking executives, they assured me that their own work and that of their employees would not follow this pattern. (I pointed out that with the right research budget, and their participation, we could examine this assertion. They weren’t that interested.) But I suspect that they were too quick to discount our results. For most bankers, a multimillion-dollar compensation package could easily be counterproductive. Maybe that will be some comfort to the boards at UBS and Goldman Sachs.
Mr. Ariely went on to describe the conversations he heard among brokers as the end of year close approached. They spent a large amount of time worrying, talking, and otherwise obsessing about their potential bonus, and their productivity declined as a result. Imagine a staff room during testing where the teachers are more worried about their bonus, than the fact that their students are homeless, or their mother is using, or their dad is in prison and you see where this can lead.
Does that mean things need to stay the same, and all teaching jobs should be “equal”? No, I think there are a number of ways that you could give teachers incentives that would not be as potentially problematic as big bonuses. Giving incentive pay to teachers based on test scores focuses on them changing an “output” (student test scores) which is much harder to affect, than an input (ex. paying for extra duty time tutoring). Here are some “incentives” that I’ve already suggested for the Priority Schools to the Superintendent:
- Lower class-size: CSR will continue to be compromised in the rest of the district, you could use the money to guarantee 15 -1 K-2; 20-1 in Third, and 25-1 in 4-6; and Oak Ridge would become more attractive. This has been done at QEIA schools already.
- The extended day/year is a double-edged sword because it’s more work, but you’ll have to pay more money. That may be attractive to some.
- More prep and collaboration time. This would allow you to extend the day, while giving teacher collaboration and preparation time and could be a big incentive for them.
- Professional support services: a full time nurse, social worker, psychologist, extra RSP services to support RTI, or resource teachers.
Some modest duty pay would not be inappropriate (because small and moderate incentives can improve performance), but $20,000 may just be buying trouble.
Links:
Well, that’s one way to take care of staffing at the Priority Schools… « SCUSD Observer
What Really Happens When We Pay People for Test Scores? | LFA: Join The Conversation – Public School Insights
Room at the Top for Test Scores? | Public Agenda
Blogging Innovation: Do Rewards Kill Innovation and Creativity? – Latest innovation articles, videos, and insights
Dan Ariely Takes on ‘Irrational’ Economic Impulses : NPR
Op-Ed Contributor – What’s the Value of a Big Bonus? – NYTimes.com
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.”
Concerns & Questions About The “Talent Transfer Initiative”
