4 ms·
It was only a 2 year study and the first year had no positive results. A teacher motivated by incentives receives their motivation externally. Motivation in su
by aik 17y ago
It was only a 2 year study and the first year had no positive results.
A teacher motivated by incentives receives their motivation externally. Motivation in such a form is never sustainable I don't believe. Over time, I would expect the motivation teachers receive from incentives would decrease over time.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoEven if it works only for years 1-5 of a teacher's career, it would still be useful. If we combine an incentive plan with a plan to keep most teachers in this window (i.e., get rid of teachers after year 6), it could be fantastically useful. Though I must admit, I don't really buy your thesis that incentives only work short term. If they did, you'd expect entrepreneurs to be unmotivated beyond the short term, for example.
- gjm11 17y agoi.e., get rid of teachers after year 6: Is it your opinion that teachers learn nothing in the course of doing their job?
- yummyfajitas 17y agoIt is my opinion that teachers learn nothing useful after 2 years. One source (among many others): http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_ORGANIZATIONS/FLDR_PLCY_RES_DEV/PAR_DIVISION_MAIN/RESEARCH_PLANNING/PUBLICATIONS/REPORTS/PAU%20PAY%20%26%20PERFORM.PDF http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_OR... So I suppose that a more careful cost-benefit analysis needs to be made.
- gjm11 17y agoLet's suppose that the results of that study are accurate and generalizable, so that (1) teachers with at most two years of experience are dramatically worse than ones with three or more, but that beyond that there's no advantage to having more. And let's suppose that although the study talks about "less than three years experience" and is written as if there's no such thing as a teacher with less than one year of experience, what they actually mean is "first two years", "next two years", etc. So. You are proposing to throw teachers out after six years of teaching. Then, assuming every teacher stays the full six years, 1/3 of all teachers will be in that low-experience category that teaches so much less effectively. At present, according to the study you cited, the figure is more like 1/5. It seems that your proposal will result in 65% more pupils being taught by teachers who do not do a good job. This is not the only reason why your suggestion seems to me unlikely to be a good one, but it seems a pretty compelling reason.
- aik 17y agoWhy would entrepreneurs lose their motivation? Entrepreneurs are working for themselves, not for some chunk of change someone else will give them if they perform as well as some random person wants them to. If we get rid of teachers after 6 years, what would that teacher do? How would this work exactly?
- yummyfajitas 17y agoEntrepreneurs work harder because they believe it will get them more money. But if you dislike that example, consider traders, lawyers or salespeople (all of whom work for "some chunk of change someone else will give them"). Do incentives fail with those professions after a few years? As for "what will teachers do" after 6 years, they can either continue to perform well or find a new job (just like a trader or salesman). The purpose of school is education, not jobs for liberal arts grads.
- aik 17y agoMy main point is that an entrepreneur has complete control over everything they do and therefore complete control over how much money they make (or as much control you can possibly have over something like starting a business), while a teacher simply receives a bonus when their students test well. For the average person, I can't expect that a bonus is forever-motivating (not to say entrepreneurs are always motivated). I agree that teachers may perform better with bonuses, but that's obviously not how it SHOULD be. "they can either continue to perform well or find a new job" How to measure?