Performance based pay

  • 1,000 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,000
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Performance-based pay and teachers: AN EXAMINATION OF CONSEQUENCES ON INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND WORKER- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS.
  • 2. Introduction How performance-based pay affects teaching profession
  • 3. Introduction Extrinsic Motivators (or rewards) Influences:  Intrinsic motivation  Working relationships  Superiors  Colleagues
  • 4. Introduction Poor student achievement:  Increased awareness toward public education  Resulted in many new education reforms
  • 5. Introduction Performance-based pay is used to:  Motivate teachers  Raise instructional quality  Increase student achievement  Locating inadequate teachers
  • 6. Outline
  • 7. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries
  • 8. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay
  • 9. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay What research says about the use of performance- based pay
  • 10. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay What research says about the use of performance- based pay Methods used to evaluate teachers
  • 11. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay What research says about the use of performance- based pay Methods used to evaluate teachers Factors which lead to reduced teacher morale
  • 12. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay What research says about the use of performance- based pay Methods used to evaluate teachers Factors which lead to reduced teacher morale Risks of using rewards in the workplace
  • 13. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay What research says about the use of performance- based pay Methods used to evaluate teachers Factors which lead to reduced teacher morale Risks of using rewards in the workplace Conclusion
  • 14. Types of IncentivesMonetary Non-Monetary
  • 15. Types of Incentives Monetary Non-MonetaryPay bonusesImproved job stabilityPensionsSalary supplements
  • 16. Types of Incentives Monetary Non-MonetaryPay bonuses Professional development opportunitiesImproved job stability Additional teachingPensions resourcesSalary supplements Coupons or vouchers Social recognition (e.g. award ceremonies, etc)
  • 17. Comparison of UseDeveloped Countries Monetary incentives Hybrids  Monetary &  Non-monetary Majority of rewards = $
  • 18. Comparison of UseDeveloped Countries Developing Countries Monetary incentives  Non-monetary Hybrids incentives  Monetary  More economical &  Non-monetary Majority of rewards = $
  • 19. RationaleImprove student academic achievement.Improve instructional abilities and qualityIncrease education standardsIncreased teacher work ethic
  • 20. Capitalism & Education Money is the only true form of motivation Corporate routines and ethos have influenced mainstream education
  • 21. Capitalism & Education Money is the only true form of motivation Corporate routines and ethos have influenced mainstream education Competition for additional funding  Race to the Top Competition will produce  Increased levels of instruction  New “types” of teachers who thrive in a competitive environment  A means to identify and remove weak performers
  • 22. Research says… Performance-based pay ≠ Increased student achievement
  • 23. Research says… Performance-based pay ≠ Increased student achievement Frequency of work-related incentives is increasing
  • 24. Research says… Performance-based pay ≠ Increased student achievement Frequency of work-related incentives is increasing Performance-based pay ≠ Increased work quality
  • 25. Research says… “Tone” is advesarial  Typically in developed countries
  • 26. Research says… Benefits? Reduced teacher mobility between schools  “Undesirable” schools experienced increased teacher stability
  • 27. Research says… Benefits? Reduced teacher absenteeism  When pay was linked to attendance
  • 28. Benefits? However… Some teachers sought out schools with performance- based pay  Good teachers moved in order to qualify for higher earnings  Struggling schools could not hold onto good teachers
  • 29. Research says… Performance based-pay needs to be  Linked to instructional quality
  • 30. Research says… Performance based-pay needs to be  Linked to instructional quality  Transparent to teachers that evaluation methods truly assess high quality instruction
  • 31. Teacher Evaluation All tasks are not created equal  Nor should be evaluated equally
  • 32. Teacher Evaluation• All tasks are not created equal o Nor should be evaluated equallyAlgorithmic Tasks Heuristic TasksAssembly line CreativePredicable outcome & method of Requires problem-solvingcompletion
  • 33. Teacher Evaluation All tasks are not created equal  Nor should be evaluated equallyAlgorithmic Tasks Heuristic TasksAssembly line CreativePredicable outcome & method of Requires problem-solvingcompletion• Teaching profession is arguably heuristic
  • 34. Teacher Evaluation How evaluations are used:  Administrators  Utilized results to assess teacher’s involvement in school (outside of regular teaching schedule)
  • 35. Teacher Evaluation How evaluations are used:  Administrators  Utilized results to assess teacher’s involvement in school (outside of regular teaching schedule)  Teachers  Want results to reflect teaching strengths  Identify instructional areas that need improvement
  • 36. Human Motivation Theories Range of human needs  Basic  Food, water, shelter  Complex  Interests, potential activities that lead to success
  • 37. Human Motivation Theories Extrinsic rewards  Reduce intrinsic motivation  Potentially reduce perceived worker autonomy
  • 38. Human Motivation & Autonomy Autonomy is a common thread between many human motivation theories Autonomy is reduced:  With overuse use of worker monitoring  Increased frequency of worker evaluations
  • 39. Human Motivation & Mainstream Ideals Intrinsic motivation & autonomy are given little consideration Motivation ≠ Intrinsic + Extrinsic according to economists Money represents the only motivator for all workers
  • 40. Quality of Work Decreased motivation = decreased quality
  • 41. Quality of Work Decreased motivation = decreased quality Worker apathy is created with perceived loss of autonomy and reduce intrinsic motivation
  • 42. Low Teacher Morale Factors leading to reduced morale:  Low fixed wages (more common in developing countries)
  • 43. Low Teacher Morale Factors leading to reduced morale:  Low fixed wages (more common in developing countries)  New policies
  • 44. Low Teacher Morale Factors leading to reduced morale:  Low fixed wages (more common in developing countries)  New policies  Reduced teacher bargaining rights
  • 45. Risks of Using Incentives Opportunistic behaviour  Teaching to test  Reduced teamwork  Increased teacher mobility
  • 46. Risks of Using Incentives Opportunistic behaviour  Teaching to test  Reduced teamwork  Increased teacher mobility Narrowed focus  Focus on achieving rewards becomes teacher’s primary concern  Aspects of job deemed irrelevant if they did not contribute to attaining incentive(s)
  • 47. Risks of Using Incentives Opportunistic behaviour  Teaching to test  Reduced teamwork  Increased teacher mobility Narrowed focus  Focus on achieving rewards becomes teacher’s primary concern  Aspects of job deemed irrelevant if they did not contribute to attaining incentive(s) Increased resentment toward authority
  • 48. Conclusion Research fails to determine that performance-based pays increases:  Student achievement  Instructional quality Planning process:  Requires much consideration before implementation  Should be transparent  Should allow teacher input
  • 49. Conclusion Alternative Rewards  Greater consideration for non-monetary incentives  Alternative rewards may also create cost-saving incentives Trust  Shift in focus from competition to collaboration  Trust (with accurate tools to measure accountability) should be placed back into the teaching profession
  • 50. ReferencesAmiable, T.M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-SAndrews, H.A. (2011). Supporting quality teachers with recognition. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 59-70.Ballot, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public schools. Economics of Education Review, 20, 51-61.
  • 51. ReferencesBarkema, H.G. (1995). Do job executives work harder when they are monitored? Kyklos, 48, 19–42.Buck, S., & Greene, J.P. (2011). Blocked, diluted, and co-opted: Interest groups wage war against merit pay. Education Next, 11(2), 26-31.Camerer, C.F. (2010). Removing financial incentives demotivates the brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 107(49), 20849-20850. doi:10.1073/pnas.1016108107
  • 52. ReferencesChamberlin, R., Wragg, T., Haynes, G., &Wragg, C. (2002). Performance-related pay and the teaching profession: A review of the literature. Research Papers in Education, 17(1), 31-49. doi:10.1080/02671520110102534Cohen, D.K., &Murnane, R.J. (1985). The merits of merit pay. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=tr ue&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED270843&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED270843Deckop&Cirka. (2000). The risk and reward of a double-edged sword: Effects of a merit pay program on intrinsic motivation. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(3), 400-418. doi:10.1177/0899764000293003
  • 53. ReferencesDee, T.S., & Keys, B.J. (2004). Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 23(3), 471-488. doi:10.1002/pam.20022Frey, B.S. (1993). Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry between trust and loyalty. Economic Inquiry, 31(4), 663–670. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1993.tb00897.xFrey, B.S., &Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00150
  • 54. ReferencesGoodman, S., & Turner, L. (2011). Does whole-school performance pay improve student learning? Evidence from the New York City schools. Education Next, 11(2), 67-71.Griffith, S.A. (2008). A proposed model for assessing quality of education. International Review Of Education, 54(1), 99-112. doi:10.1007/s11159-007-9072-xGuarino, C.M., Brown, A.B., & Wyse, A.E. (2011). Can districts keep good teachers in the schools that need them most?. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 962-979.
  • 55. ReferencesHatry, H.P., Greiner, J.M., & Urban Inst., W.C. (1984). Issues in teacher incentive plans. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=tr ue&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED244340&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED244340Howell, W., Peterson, P.E., & West, M. (2011a). The public weighs in on school reform: Intense controversies do not alter public thinking, but teachers differ more sharply than ever. Education Next, 11(4), 10-22.Howell, W., West, M., & Peterson, P.E. (2011b). Meeting of the minds. Education Next, 11(1), 20-31.
  • 56. ReferencesJames, H.S. (2005). Why did you do that? An economic examination of the effect of extrinsic compensation on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal Of Economic Psychology, 26(4), 549-566. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2004.11.002Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (1991). Performance-related pay: theory and practice. Paper presented at the 10th Colloquium for the European Group of Organisation Studies, Vienna, July 1991. Oxford: Templeton College: The Oxford Centre for Management Studies.Kobakhidze, M. (2010). Teacher incentives and the future of merit- based pay in Georgia. European Education, 42(3), 68-89. doi:10.2753/EUE1056-4934420304
  • 57. ReferencesLavy, L. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. Future of Children, 17(1), 87–108. doi:10.1353/foc.2007.0007Locke, E., Feren, D., McCaleb, V., Shaw, K., & Denny, A. (1980). The relative effectiveness of four ways of motivating employee performance. In Changes in Working Life, ed. KD Duncan, MM Gruenberg, D Wallis, pp. 363–88. New York: WileyMarkova, G., & Ford, C. (2011). Is money the panacea? Rewards for knowledge workers. International Journal Of Productivity And Performance Management, 60(8), 813-823. doi:10.1108/17410401111182206
  • 58. ReferencesMatsumura, L., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., &Valdés, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment,8(3), 207-229. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0803_01McCollum, S. (2001). How merit pay improves education. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 21-24.McKeachie, W.J. (1997). Student ratings the validity of use. American Psychologist 52(11), 1218–1225. doi:10.1037//0003- 066X.52.11.1218
  • 59. ReferencesMcLeod, D.B., Stake, R.E., Schappelle, B., Mellissinos, M., &Gierl. M. (1996). Setting the standards: NCTM’s role in the reform of mathematics education. In: Bold Ventures: U.S. Innovations in Science And Mathematics Education. Vol 3: Cases in Mathematics Education, ed. by Senta A. Raizen and Edward D. Britton, 13–132. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Muralidharan, K., &Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher opinions on performance pay: Evidence from India. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 394-403. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.001Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 107(49), 20911-20916. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013305107
  • 60. ReferencesMurnane, R.J., & Cohen, D.K. (1985). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1–17.Osterloh, M., & Frey, B.S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538-72.Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
  • 61. ReferencesPfau, B.N., & Kay, I.T. (2002). The five key elements of a total rewards and accountability orientation. Benefits Quarterly, 18(3), 7-15.Podgursky, M., & Springer, M.G. (2007). Credentials versus performance: Review of the teacher performance pay research. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 82(4), 551-573. doi:10.1080/01619560701602934Pouliakas, K. (2010). Pay enough, dont pay too much or dont pay at all? The impact of bonus intensity on job satisfaction. Kyklos, 63(4), 597-626. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.00490.x
  • 62. ReferencesRamirez, A. (2001). How merit pay undermines education. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 16-20.Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 571-600. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070254Scott, T. (2011). A nation at risk to win the future: The state of public education in the U.S. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9(1), 267-316.
  • 63. ReferencesSmarick, A. (2011). Diplomatic mission: President Obamas path to performance pay. Education Next, 11(1), 56-63.Vallerand, R., &Bissonette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality 60(3), 599-620. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1992.tb00922.xVest, M.J., Scott, K., Vest, J.M., & Markham, S.E. (2000). Factors influencing employee beliefs that pay is tied to performance. Journal of Business & Psychology, 14(4), 553.
  • 64. ReferencesWeinert, F.E., &Helmke, A. (1995). Interclassroom differences in instructional quality and interindividual differences in cognitive. Educational Psychologist, 30(1), 15. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3001_2Wilkesmann, U., &Schmid, C.J. (2012). The impacts of new governance on teaching at German universities. Findings from a national survey. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education And Educational Planning, 63(1), 33-52. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9423-1Woessmann, L. (2011a). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 404-418. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.008
  • 65. ReferencesWoessmann, L. (2011b). Merit pay international. Education Next, 11(2), 72-77.Zhao, J., & Gallant, D.J. (2012). Student evaluation of instruction in higher education: Exploring issues of validity and reliability. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 227-235.