AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHER INCENTIVES LINKED TO STUDENT PERFORMANCES ON STANDARDIZED TEST TONIETTE TINKER UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS

THE ISSUE: “A Nation at Risk” (1983): government and corporate officials blamed economic difficulties in the 1980’s on the lack of a uniformed educational systems present in public education. Texas Response: standardized testing emerged in an effort to hold teachers accountable for student’s learning. (TEAMS, TAKS, STAAR) No Child Left Behind (2002 ): Not only were states required to test students, they were also held accountable for meeting projected standards set forth by the government. Schools were to be labeled as: Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable, Unacceptable. If they did not meet AYP (adequate yearly progress), they could be subject to sanctions.

THE MOTIVATOR Race to the Top: a government funded grant that provides funds for schools to reward teachers whose students show designated growth on state standardized test. “The Wave:” Several school districts latched on to the idea that bonuses attached to student performance was an extrinsic motivator for educators. ( New York City; HISD (ASPIRE) current)

HYPOTHESIS: Teachers are intrinsically motivated to educate students at the highest level; therefore monetary incentives attached to student performance will not motivate them to provide rigorous instruction.

THE STUDY SITE: PERSHING M. SCHOOL 1746 students and 102 educators. Student Population: 40% African American (699 students), 30% Hispanic (524 students), 27% Caucasian (471 students) and 2-3% other groups (52 students). The teaching staff at this school:30% African American, 50%White, 9% Hispanic, and 10% other group Educators: average of eleven years of service.

AEIS Data Used to examine scores in Reading and Math on standardized test to examine levels of increase throughout the duration of the bonus program Survey Responses Used to analyze teachers’ perspectives regarding monetary incentives attached to student performance on standardized test. MEASURES

RESULTS

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The Reading scores increased from about 87% passing to 95% Math scores increased from 68% to about 91% during the ASPIRE period. In each group, the average score for motivation was below 3 (somewhat- not motivated at all) In regard to competiveness, the average score was 3-4 (mostly created competitive atmosphere- completely), indicating teachers did believe bonuses created an atmosphere of negative competiveness. Very little significance between groups. Across the board, educators did not feel that monetary incentives were motivators. Very little significance between groups. Across the board, educators did not think performance pay created an atmosphere of competiveness

STRENGTHS/ LIMITATIONS study was conducted on a campus with varying years of experience, the results were reflective of educators who have taught pre and post bonus periods. study is that it was conducted in a district that is known for its performance pay program. outside factors such as private tutoring or teacher trainings that may cause student’s scores to increase are not measured only one school is being studied which serves as a threat to the external validity; we are not sure the attitudes at this school is reflective of the majority.

THE RESEARCH SAYS: monetary incentives increase performance quantity, not quality, and since effective teaching is more about the quality of what happens in classrooms, offering bonuses will not produce quality instruction. In fact, studies show that monetary incentives may cause educators to engage in behaviors that are not beneficial to student success. attitudes have shifted, and teachers aren’t exactly opposed to performance pay. job enlargement contributes to teachers’ willingness to work harder in the classrooms.

RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to offering bonuses, teachers should be generously compensated for taking on leadership roles that ultimately result in an increase in student performance. If districts choose to use bonuses, outlines an effective system for implementing performance pay programs that are effective. evaluate educator’s salaries and levels of increase in comparison to other professions.