Governor McDonnell campaigned on the idea of merit pay for teachers and administrators.\u00a0Whether you agree or disagree with his idea, I think you have to respect someone who actually implements something they campaigned on.\u00a0 Approximately 10% of the school divisions are piloting a merit \/incentive pay plan during this school year using the revised teacher evaluation plan adopted by the Virginia Board of Education which links teacher evaluation to student academic growth. As the Governor develops his budget for the next biennium, it would not be suprising if he includes funds for similar initiatives.<\/p>\n
Whether you agree or\u00a0disagree with the merit pay initiative, you need to address the most recent studies on merit pay. If you disagree with merit pay, you will have some ammunition that states that merit pay plans do not work for teachers.\u00a0 If you agree with a merit pay plan, you need to analyze the studies very carefully to determine their validity, reliability, and whether or not they would be applicable in Virginia.\u00a0 In either case, you should be aware of the research.\u00a0 There are three such studies that have been published within the last year or so.\u00a0 These\u00a0studies reference merit pay plans in Nashville, Chicago\u00a0and New\u00a0York.<\/p>\n
Vanderbilt published a study in September 2010 related to a merit pay plan in Nashville titled “Performance Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching” which concluded that “students of teachers randomly assigned to the treatment group (eligible for bonuses) did not outperform students whose teachers were assigned to the control group (not eligible for bonuses).”\u00a0 The executive summary of the study can\u00a0be accessed at: http:\/\/www.performanceincentives.org\/data\/files\/pages\/POINT%20REPORT_9.21.10pdf<\/a><\/p>\n A study on the merit pay plan adopted in Chicago (where Arne Duncan, current U.S. Secretary of Education, was superintendent) titled\u00a0 “An Evaluation of the Teacher Advancement Program\u00a0 (TAP) in Chicago: Year Two Impact Report” was released in May 2010.\u00a0 The study “found no evidence that the program raised student test scores.” The study can be accessed at the following site-it may look like you cannot read the online document but keep scrollong down, it will be readable: http:\/\/www.mathematica-mpr.com\/publications\/pdfs\/education\/tap_yr2_rpt.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n The most recent study, connected to the Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program (SPBP) in New York, was released by the Rand Corporation in 2011.\u00a0 The study “found no effects on student achievement. Overall, SPBP did not improve student achievement in any grade level.”\u00a0 The study\u00a0can be accessed online at:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.rand.org\/content\/dam\/rand\/pubs\/monographs\/2011\/RAND_MG1114.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n The work of Daniel Pink in his book titled Drive: The Suprising Truth About What Motivates Us<\/em>\u00a0 (Riverhead Books: New York, 2009) is an interesting look at the research on motivation in a business environment.\u00a0 Pink argues that incentive pay works as a motivator for routine tasks, but that the research does not support merit pay as an incentive for tasks that require cognitive skills and creativity.\u00a0 Instead, he argues that the research states that individuals are intrinsically motivated by three things: autonomy, mastery and purpose.\u00a0 Employees want some sense of autonomy to be able to make their own decisions.\u00a0 Employees are motivated by the desire for mastery or their need to get better at what they do.\u00a0 Finally, highly motivated employees are motivated by a higher purpose through their commitment to their organization and helping the organization achieve at higher levels. It is interesting to note that Pink’s third motivator (purpose) is very similar to what Jim Collins wrote in\u00a0 Good to Great and the Social Sectors (<\/em>2005).\u00a0 Collins stated that Level 5 leaders were “ambitious first and foremost for the cause, movement, the mission, the work – not themselves…(p. 11)”<\/p>\n