Why Merit Pay for Teachers Doesn't Work... And Why We Shouldn't Stop Trying

A few months ago, my Cafe colleague Jim Brennan wrote a post on The Merits of Merit Pay for Teachers.  Beyond his observation that there seem to be few people with substantive experience in performance pay involved in the debate, Jim also identified some of the conditions generally seen by experts as necessary for the success of any pay for performance effort; he identifies nine of them for starters.  These conditions are, as Jim notes, challenging to meet even in private industry where management has total control.  They are monumentally more difficult in the typical public school setting.

Without the right environment to support teacher merit pay, Jim concluded, it cannot succeed.

Hot on the heels of Jim's post came the release of this study (also described in this USA Today article) from Vanderbilt University; the "first scientifically rigorous test" of merit pay for teachers, confirming exactly Jim's conclusion.  The study found that offering middle school teachers bonuses up to $15,000 did not produce gains in student test scores. Unfortunately, though, it would seem that the researchers overlooked Jim's most important point.

It's the system, stupid.

Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute hits this nail on its head in his post about the study's outcomes.  From Coulson:

Ask almost anyone—even Fidel Castro—and they’ll acknowledge that the free enterprise system results in higher quality and greater efficiency than government monopolies. As a result, it has long been argued that we should introduce this or that aspect of free markets into the public school system. And that’s the problem. The free enterprise system is a system. It is not a smorgasbord from which we can pick an isolated incentive here and a particular freedom there, and expect to get the same results we’ve come to expect from full-fledged markets.

Offering merit pay to teachers does nothing to liberate principals from the shackles of union contracts and state licensing requirements that determine whom they can hire and fire. Neither does it give principals the incentives enjoyed by private sector managers to hire and retain the most effective employees they can find. Nor does it break the government funding monopoly of public schooling, which pressures parents to stick with public schools even when there are better and more efficient private alternatives. It also fails to provide the freedoms and incentives to would-be education entrepreneurs that are responsible for the scale-up of top providers and effective new innovations in every other field.

In the end, public school merit pay lashes a few feathers to a brick. Why be surprised when it doesn’t fly?

And in our own internal Cafe debate on the topic, given the evidence of failure and even futility, Jim also advocates backing off.

(1) Almost none of the required conditions in my prior article exist.  Without the proper soil, the plant can’t grow.  It’s a waste of time and resources right now.
(2) The inevitable premature failures will taint the reputation of P4P and will unjustly prejudice opinion against better measures attempted under the proper better circumstances when the proper groundwork has been accomplished.
(3) Most of the folks mucking it up have absolutely no understanding of best practices for P4P, no training in it and no experience with it (politicians, school boards, unions, teachers, etc.).  Best thing would be to keep them the hell away from it until (think Orson Welles) the time is right.  Which ain’t now.

...Just as the automobile won’t run right until it is correctly engineered, built, tuned up, gassed, oiled and the ignition sequence initiated and placed into the right gear, pointed in the desired direction… There’s a whole lot of essential background work necessary before you simply step into a vehice and expect it to go when you step on the gas pedal.  Do your basic homework first, then worry about grading the teacher.

I don't essentially disagree with Jim or Mr. Coulson, but I am genuinely conflicted here.  I understand that we can't simply parachute merit pay - or a bonus plan - into a dysfunctioning system and expect it to work.  What's needed, rather, is a deep look (by people who know how to do it) at the total reward model operating in public school systems.  Perhaps the momentum behind merit pay provides us the opening - the toe in the door - to assess the context and identify a roadmap to a better process and approach.  One that might well bump up against the constraints of the system, but that might also begin to constructively influence the system from the inside out (while, hopefully, other forces are working on it from the outside in).  One that would recognize and reward great teachers, signal the route for those who would follow in their footsteps, attract the right new talent to the field and discourage those who should be moving on to other work.

I guess I'm just reluctant to concede that it isn't possible.  Aren't the stakes too high to simply throw in the towel?

Ann Bares is the Editor of Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

Image: I shamelessly co-opted Andrew Coulson's wonderful verbal and visual metaphor by PowerPointing my own version of a winged brick.

Comments

[Havey]

Hi, Ann,

With all due respects, you did not do your due diligence on this one. P4P suffers an apparent body blow, but you did not read the Vanderbuilt University study which made the negative report to evaluate it. Instead, you repeat the negative comments of someone from the CATO Institute, which is a well known conservative think tank and hardly an objective source on teacher merit pay matters. Seems like you were playing to your pro-business audience on this one.

Harvey

[Ann Bares]

Harvey:

Why do you assume I did not read the Vanderbilt University study? As a general rule, I don't comment on the results of studies without first reviewing the sources myself - as I made a particular point of doing this case. In fact, I found a number of aspects of that study which troubled and/or caused me to question the conclusions reached, beyond what I mentioned here or what was addressed in CATO and other reactions - but didn't have the space to address them in the context of one blog post.

Can you elaborate on what you believe I overlooked?

Your comment on the CATO Institute is valid, and I hesitated to use that quote for that reason, because it does have a strongly conservative reputation ... but I went with it anyway because I believed the point to be a valid one, and in line with my reading and interpretation of the study results, as well as my broad experience working with rewards in a large range of settings.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is the pro-business audience alone that is interested in promoting systemic change in our public schools. My point here is meant to be that I recognize the futility of pushing a single reform in a system that likely needs broader kinds of change - but that I also think a broader look at rewards in this setting could produce some valuable insights and possibilities.

I don't claim to be an expert here - but it is an area that I'd like to encourage reward professionals to weigh in on. That was the other purpose of my post.

Appreciate the comment.

[Gina]

The whole system needs to go away and something that actually works needs to be implemented. Yes- pay for performance will work just as it does in the free market. If you do well, you are compensated for that. But like you said- other changes need to be made along with this policy. Implementing the ability to terminate a poor performer- just as any company would- would certainly be an incentive to work harder- make the curriculum more exciting and create a thirst for knowledge. Really- how motivated would you be if you knew that regardless of how well you worked or the results of your performance- you would always receive your step increases every 6 months and you could never be terminated. Not to mention a 3 month paid vacation each year. I'm sure most would give just enough to get by each day and not care about the end result.

[Jason Glass]

Hi Ann,

From someone who works in this space quite a bit (performance pay in schools), I wasn't surprised at all by the results of the POINT study.

While the researchers are quality people and scientists, the entire experiment hinged on a cash for test scores scheme. For this to work, the underlying psychological mechanism at play has to be that educators really could do better for kids, but have been holding back their talents waiting for some money to "motivate" them to do better.

Educators are already motivated to do great things for kids - they come hard-wired that way. This behavioristic framework just doesn't work for this group of people who are much more motivated for altruistic reasons than financial ones.

Where we have seen performance pay have success in schools is where it is part of a larger reform that includes supports like collaborative professional development programs, multiple career options, quality and transparent measures, and a "we" factor in the implementation where those involved in the compensation program are closely involved in the design.

I'd point to recent studies published on the Benwood Initiative in TN, Denver Public Schools model, the Teacher Advancement Program, and my own personal experience with Eagle County Schools in CO as examples of where this can be a success as part of a "full court press" approach to change.

To be more direct - the POINT study showed us its not a stand alone reform and its not a silver bullet that will cure everything. It takes a much more comprehensive approach to positively effect the distribution.

Finally, another thing the POINT study tells us is that the cash for scores scheme used in the experiment did no worse than just a step and level pay system. So, this should also defuse those who would say performance pay systems do harm to schools - the POINT study would not indicate that is the case. This should free us up for more experimentation and adaptation in schools - which is what's really missing.

Thanks much!

Jason Glass
Battelle for Kids

[Ann Bares]

Gina:

Thanks for your comments and for adding your thoughts to the conversation!

Jason:

Thanks so much for weighing in here and sharing your considerable experience with readers.

Your experience and findings are encouraging and make complete sense - that success can best be found not in narrow, stand-alone pay schemes, but in a larger, collaborative reform effort which honors the motivation and intent that great teachers bring to their profession and all the elements that can and do make their work rewarding.