3 ms·

I know this'll sound daft... Can you share some of this data? I know there's related studies, like the famous "pick up your kids from daycare on time" study --

I know this'll sound daft... Can you share some of this data? I know there's related studies, like the famous "pick up your kids from daycare on time" study -- and of course plenty of examples about incentive structures gone wrong. However, I think those are different in subtle but important ways. The point being made here, AFAICT, is that paying more would increase the available pool of candidates. All the people who are currently interested in teaching would surely stick around -- and a lot more people would be interested, too. Given the current issues with hiring and retention, it's difficult to see how that would be a bad thing.

mlyle 4y ago
edit: many edits below for clarity since original comment 11mins ago. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10589297/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10589297/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-workers-not-engaged-jobs.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-worker... http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Piccolo,%20Podsakoff,%20et%20al.%20(JVB%202010).pdf http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Piccolo,%20Podsakoff,%... etc. Extrinsic incentives are correlated only very slightly with performance, job satisfaction and self-reported measures of motivation. The correlations that exist are confounded because causation is likely reversed (people with higher satisfaction, performance, and motivation are paid more). When we study, in isolation, extrinsic incentives on tasks that are intrinsically rewarding, they appear demotivating. Anecdotally, I see the effect in the classroom itself: rewarding students for things that they otherwise would do for the challenge and their own reward sucks the fun out of it really fast. The absolute last thing in the world you want to do is pivot someone from evaluating a task based on its intrinsic rewards to thinking about it in terms of extrinsic factors. I'm actually taking over a competitive math program next year that has had a pretty big "candy bribe" component of it that I need to figure out how to unwind. It's one thing to unexpectedly give out stickers, candy, etc, and let students know you're celebrating awesome performance... it's another still to condition students to think that doing math is only worthwhile because Jolly Ranchers will be dispensed. > The point being made here, AFAICT, is that paying more would increase the available pool of candidates. I think in the very long run that's true: there are people who would like to teach that are steered away from it during college because they figure out they just can't make the numbers work. But given that a teaching credential is a pretty substantial structural bar, I don't think it changes things much in the medium run.

mlyle 4y ago

edit: many edits below for clarity since original comment 11mins ago. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10589297/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10589297/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-workers-not-engaged-jobs.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-worker... http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Piccolo,%20Podsakoff,%20et%20al.%20(JVB%202010).pdf http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Piccolo,%20Podsakoff,%... etc. Extrinsic incentives are correlated only very slightly with performance, job satisfaction and self-reported measures of motivation. The correlations that exist are confounded because causation is likely reversed (people with higher satisfaction, performance, and motivation are paid more). When we study, in isolation, extrinsic incentives on tasks that are intrinsically rewarding, they appear demotivating. Anecdotally, I see the effect in the classroom itself: rewarding students for things that they otherwise would do for the challenge and their own reward sucks the fun out of it really fast. The absolute last thing in the world you want to do is pivot someone from evaluating a task based on its intrinsic rewards to thinking about it in terms of extrinsic factors. I'm actually taking over a competitive math program next year that has had a pretty big "candy bribe" component of it that I need to figure out how to unwind. It's one thing to unexpectedly give out stickers, candy, etc, and let students know you're celebrating awesome performance... it's another still to condition students to think that doing math is only worthwhile because Jolly Ranchers will be dispensed. > The point being made here, AFAICT, is that paying more would increase the available pool of candidates. I think in the very long run that's true: there are people who would like to teach that are steered away from it during college because they figure out they just can't make the numbers work. But given that a teaching credential is a pretty substantial structural bar, I don't think it changes things much in the medium run.