4 ms·

"what if we gave teachers a fraction of a percentage of her pupils' future earnings?" Interesting, but how would this work for students who had an awful teache

"what if we gave teachers a fraction of a percentage of her pupils' future earnings?" Interesting, but how would this work for students who had an awful teacher? I would feel angry knowing that substandard teachers were earning the same amount as one who were positively influential? I suppose you could have a rating system whereby the student could rate the teacher and a higher rating would correspond to a fairer percentage. But then this might backfire on good teachers who have to deal with problematic students. Maybe the teacher is doing a good job in this case but will get a bad rating for nothing of their doing.

rdl 16y ago
The economics solution would be to make teachers invest in students (paying cash to teach them!) in exchange for a percentage of future earnings. Taking a cheap student who everyone assumed would be a failure and inspiring and educating him into a successful entrepreneur might then be a better investment than finding a professor's son and providing an adequate education, due to a presumably kpmuch higher valuation of that child. A problem is that a successful entrepreneur or hedgie is still more likely to come from a middle or upper class background and can easily make 1000x the return of other professions (which are more credential based, and hence a more level playing field for lower class students.). Hence, even at high valuations, investing in motivated, intelligent, well connected students may be the best investment. Year on year changes would help ensure teachers were compensated fairly, as long as the market provided some kind of feedback to let parents and students evaluate teachers. I assume there is far greater variation among students and among teachers than between the teaching value offered by the same teacher to different students, but that may not be the case. I don't really think this scheme is workable, but it provides the right economic incentives to everyone.
- andrewce 16y ago
  >> I don't really think this scheme is workable, but it provides the right economic incentives to everyone. You're right, from an economics standpoint. However, there's a pretty hefty body of research talking about the effects of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. We've already seen merit pay fall flat in at least one instance ( http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/09/21/another-blow-for-merit-pay-long-awaited-tennessee-study-finds-no-impact-on-student-achievement/ http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/09/21/another-bl... ), which suggests that economic incentives don't translate to better instruction or learning. Additionally, Alfie Kohn's research (see his book "Punished by Rewards") demonstrates fairly conclusively that the addition of extrinsic motivating factors (such as money) tends to decrease intrinsic motivation. I'd much rather see all the time and money that administrating a system like this would take go to a comprehensive professional development system, reduction of class size, and/or providing more opportunities for genuine learning beyond rote memorization, but that's just me. (Edit: added quotation at the beginning for clarity)

rdl 16y ago

The economics solution would be to make teachers invest in students (paying cash to teach them!) in exchange for a percentage of future earnings. Taking a cheap student who everyone assumed would be a failure and inspiring and educating him into a successful entrepreneur might then be a better investment than finding a professor's son and providing an adequate education, due to a presumably kpmuch higher valuation of that child. A problem is that a successful entrepreneur or hedgie is still more likely to come from a middle or upper class background and can easily make 1000x the return of other professions (which are more credential based, and hence a more level playing field for lower class students.). Hence, even at high valuations, investing in motivated, intelligent, well connected students may be the best investment. Year on year changes would help ensure teachers were compensated fairly, as long as the market provided some kind of feedback to let parents and students evaluate teachers. I assume there is far greater variation among students and among teachers than between the teaching value offered by the same teacher to different students, but that may not be the case. I don't really think this scheme is workable, but it provides the right economic incentives to everyone.

andrewce 16y ago
>> I don't really think this scheme is workable, but it provides the right economic incentives to everyone. You're right, from an economics standpoint. However, there's a pretty hefty body of research talking about the effects of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. We've already seen merit pay fall flat in at least one instance ( http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/09/21/another-blow-for-merit-pay-long-awaited-tennessee-study-finds-no-impact-on-student-achievement/ http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/09/21/another-bl... ), which suggests that economic incentives don't translate to better instruction or learning. Additionally, Alfie Kohn's research (see his book "Punished by Rewards") demonstrates fairly conclusively that the addition of extrinsic motivating factors (such as money) tends to decrease intrinsic motivation. I'd much rather see all the time and money that administrating a system like this would take go to a comprehensive professional development system, reduction of class size, and/or providing more opportunities for genuine learning beyond rote memorization, but that's just me. (Edit: added quotation at the beginning for clarity)