Last fall, the results of the “first scientifically rigorous review of merit pay in the United States” were released and the researchers found the financial incentives “produced no discernible difference in academic performance” (aka test scores).
Now a new, larger study, conducted by a Harvard economist who is responsible for designing some of these schemes, “examines the effects of pay-for-performance in the New York City public schools”.
And what did he find*?
Providing incentives to teachers based on school’s performance on metrics involving student achievement, improvement, and the learning environment did not increase student achievement in any statistically meaningful way. If anything, student achievement declined. [my emphasis]
The impact of teacher incentives on student attendance, behavioral incidences, and alternative achievement outcomes such as predictive state assessments, course grades, Regents exam scores, and high school graduation rates are all negligible. Furthermore, we find no evidence that teacher incentives affect teacher behavior, measured by retention in district or in school, number of personal absences, and teacher responses to the learning environment survey, which partly determined whether a school received the performance bonus.
When it comes to research, especially dealing with human behavior, the results of any one study should not be taken as definitive proof one way or another on the issue being studied.
Two showing the exact same results, however, should at least cause thoughtful people to question their beliefs and assumptions.
Now we just need to find some thoughtful people in leadership positions at the DOE and in Congress. States likeÂ Florida could use a few as well.
*Link to pdf of the study results.
Leave a Reply