I recently had the time and desire to read a new study regarding incentive programs across the US and the world entitled, "Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education." Sponsored by the National Research Council (NRC), this study explores a vast amount of research on providing incentives to students, teachers, and schools and how the incentives affect learning outcomes. With Mayor Bloogmberg of New York City recently announcing a merit-based pay system to be reintroduced to the New York City schools (an older, different model was recently cancelled due to a variety of factors).
The study I read introduces early on a concept known as Campbell's Law, stating "the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." As we have seen time and time again in recently months, cheating scandals are rampant due to the intense pressure teachers and administrators feel to improve their test scores. Additionally, standardized tests are so narrow in focus they leave out much of particular material on certain subjects, and oftentimes entire subjects altogether (the PA state test leaves out History, meaning some schools do not teach it!).
If incentive programs are tied to these tests we are essentially saying as a nation that we do not believe students should be able to use higher-order thinking skills or master all the content in a particular subject (or selection of subjects) because we do not have the time, energy, or money to test it all correctly. Instead, we are left with teachers feeling the burden of focusing on analysis of multiple choice questions instead of how to apply their subject to the real world. This disconnect is infuriating to many.
The NRC touched on many topics related to incentives in schools but kept emphasizing the fact that these programs do not have proven positive effects. Instead, "once explicitly rewarded for a particular behavior, people tend to stop that behavior when the reward is discontinued" (p. 26).
The only example of a well thought out system was from Ohio where a "compensatory" system exists that has "four different indicators complement each other to produce an aggregate measure described by one expert as better than any single measure in capturing the varied outcomes that the state wants to monitor and encourage" (p. 49). Instead of relying on only one single source of data like schools across Pennsylvania, Ohio has chosen to take a multi-tiered approach that is more reliable.
To foster the goal of creating longterm learners and doers for both students and teachers we need to consider broader evaluations that include a wide variety of input like Ohio. Without considering all of these sources of data we are unfairly judging both student and teacher to the detriment of our future.
The study I read introduces early on a concept known as Campbell's Law, stating "the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." As we have seen time and time again in recently months, cheating scandals are rampant due to the intense pressure teachers and administrators feel to improve their test scores. Additionally, standardized tests are so narrow in focus they leave out much of particular material on certain subjects, and oftentimes entire subjects altogether (the PA state test leaves out History, meaning some schools do not teach it!).
If incentive programs are tied to these tests we are essentially saying as a nation that we do not believe students should be able to use higher-order thinking skills or master all the content in a particular subject (or selection of subjects) because we do not have the time, energy, or money to test it all correctly. Instead, we are left with teachers feeling the burden of focusing on analysis of multiple choice questions instead of how to apply their subject to the real world. This disconnect is infuriating to many.
The NRC touched on many topics related to incentives in schools but kept emphasizing the fact that these programs do not have proven positive effects. Instead, "once explicitly rewarded for a particular behavior, people tend to stop that behavior when the reward is discontinued" (p. 26).
The only example of a well thought out system was from Ohio where a "compensatory" system exists that has "four different indicators complement each other to produce an aggregate measure described by one expert as better than any single measure in capturing the varied outcomes that the state wants to monitor and encourage" (p. 49). Instead of relying on only one single source of data like schools across Pennsylvania, Ohio has chosen to take a multi-tiered approach that is more reliable.
To foster the goal of creating longterm learners and doers for both students and teachers we need to consider broader evaluations that include a wide variety of input like Ohio. Without considering all of these sources of data we are unfairly judging both student and teacher to the detriment of our future.
RSS Feed
