Performance based pay

3,168 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,168
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
538
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Performance based pay

  1. 1. Performance-based pay and teachers: AN EXAMINATION OF CONSEQUENCES ON INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND WORKER- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS.
  2. 2. Introduction How performance-based pay affects teaching profession
  3. 3. Introduction Extrinsic Motivators (or rewards) Influences:  Intrinsic motivation  Working relationships  Superiors  Colleagues
  4. 4. Introduction Poor student achievement:  Increased awareness toward public education  Resulted in many new education reforms
  5. 5. Introduction Performance-based pay is used to:  Motivate teachers  Raise instructional quality  Increase student achievement  Locating inadequate teachers
  6. 6. Outline
  7. 7. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries
  8. 8. Outline Types of Incentives Use of rewards in different countries Reasons for using performance-based pay
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Types of IncentivesMonetary Non-Monetary
  15. 15. Types of Incentives Monetary Non-MonetaryPay bonusesImproved job stabilityPensionsSalary supplements
  16. 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. 17. Comparison of UseDeveloped Countries Monetary incentives Hybrids  Monetary &  Non-monetary Majority of rewards = $
  18. 18. Comparison of UseDeveloped Countries Developing Countries Monetary incentives  Non-monetary Hybrids incentives  Monetary  More economical &  Non-monetary Majority of rewards = $
  19. 19. RationaleImprove student academic achievement.Improve instructional abilities and qualityIncrease education standardsIncreased teacher work ethic
  20. 20. Capitalism & Education Money is the only true form of motivation Corporate routines and ethos have influenced mainstream education
  21. 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. 22. Research says… Performance-based pay ≠ Increased student achievement
  23. 23. Research says… Performance-based pay ≠ Increased student achievement Frequency of work-related incentives is increasing
  24. 24. Research says… Performance-based pay ≠ Increased student achievement Frequency of work-related incentives is increasing Performance-based pay ≠ Increased work quality
  25. 25. Research says… “Tone” is advesarial  Typically in developed countries
  26. 26. Research says… Benefits? Reduced teacher mobility between schools  “Undesirable” schools experienced increased teacher stability
  27. 27. Research says… Benefits? Reduced teacher absenteeism  When pay was linked to attendance
  28. 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. 29. Research says… Performance based-pay needs to be  Linked to instructional quality
  30. 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. 31. Teacher Evaluation All tasks are not created equal  Nor should be evaluated equally
  32. 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. 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. 34. Teacher Evaluation How evaluations are used:  Administrators  Utilized results to assess teacher’s involvement in school (outside of regular teaching schedule)
  35. 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. 36. Human Motivation Theories Range of human needs  Basic  Food, water, shelter  Complex  Interests, potential activities that lead to success
  37. 37. Human Motivation Theories Extrinsic rewards  Reduce intrinsic motivation  Potentially reduce perceived worker autonomy
  38. 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. 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. 40. Quality of Work Decreased motivation = decreased quality
  41. 41. Quality of Work Decreased motivation = decreased quality Worker apathy is created with perceived loss of autonomy and reduce intrinsic motivation
  42. 42. Low Teacher Morale Factors leading to reduced morale:  Low fixed wages (more common in developing countries)
  43. 43. Low Teacher Morale Factors leading to reduced morale:  Low fixed wages (more common in developing countries)  New policies
  44. 44. Low Teacher Morale Factors leading to reduced morale:  Low fixed wages (more common in developing countries)  New policies  Reduced teacher bargaining rights
  45. 45. Risks of Using Incentives Opportunistic behaviour  Teaching to test  Reduced teamwork  Increased teacher mobility
  46. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

×