Showing posts with label Dennis Theobald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dennis Theobald. Show all posts

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Attack of the merit pay zombie

This was written by Dennis Theobald who is an executive staff officer with the Alberta Teachers' Association. This post was originally found here.

by Dennis Theobald

The single most irritating thing about zombies is that, starting off dead, they are almost impossible to kill. Likewise, some issues in education are like zombies, periodically climbing out of their graves to terrorize innocent townsfolk.

To illustrate, allow me to share with you my most recent encounter with a zombie issue. There I was in my tidy little office at Barnett House when the phone rang. Calling from Toronto was a writer with Canadian Family magazine who wanted my comment on a proposal to introduce merit pay for teachers. A zombie was abroad in the land!

What is remarkable about the merit-pay zombie is that it should emerge at this time. After all, we are in the midst of a global economic crisis precipitated by the catastrophic failure of American and British financial institutions. That failure, in turn, was the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by managers more concerned with maximizing their performance bonuses than conscientiously stewarding the funds entrusted to them. To echo Dr. Phil’s famous question: So how’s that working for you?

It is also not the first time that this zombie has walked the earth. Pay-for-performance was first introduced in England around 1710 and became a national policy in 1862. It remained in place for 30 years. A similar policy introduced in 1876 in Ontario was abandoned in 1883. Merit-pay programs have been repeatedly introduced and abandoned in various US jurisdictions and in the United Kingdom. In every case, merit-pay schemes have been criticized and eventually abandoned because of their negative effect on teaching and learning. These schemes typically drove teachers and schools to narrow instruction, focus on marginal improvement, exclude borderline students and otherwise manipulate the system. In short, merit-pay for teachers has a consistent and sustained record of failure.

Advocates of merit pay for teachers usually claim the approach works well and is widely used in the private sector. The truth is quite different. Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behaviour at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a leading advocate for evidence-based management, has researched three decades of empirical studies only to conclude that the idea that individual pay for performance will enhance organizational performance rests on a set of assumptions that do not hold true in the vast majority of organizations. Testifying before the US Congress in 2007, Pfeffer stated that "the evidence is overwhelming that individual pay for performance does not improve organizational performance except in very limited cases" and cited dozens of studies showing that merit-pay programs generate higher turnover, lower quality and a vast array of unintended results, including serious ethical breaches and business-killing behaviours. The truth of his conclusions has been amply demonstrated by recent events.

So merit pay doesn’t work in education and it doesn’t work in business—it should be a dead issue, right? You just go on believing that, but you might just want to keep your doors and windows bolted shut and sleep with one eye open. Merit pay is still out there and it wants to eat your brain.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Testing theories

This post first appeared on the Alberta Teachers' Association website here.

By Dennis Theobald


My daughter Siobhan has advised me that she intends to write her January diploma examinations while wearing her pyjamas. Pointing out that she did phenomenally well on the two unit tests she wrote on “pyjama day” at her school, she asserts that this strategy will ensure she achieves the best possible results on her Grade 12 tests. (My response was to tell her to Google the Latin phrase Post hoc ergo propter hoc.)


Siobhan, however, is not alone in her efforts to identify strategies to maximize test performance that do not rely on old-fashioned learning, study, practice and review. The media and scholarly journals are full of accounts of innovative ideas for improving test scores.

For example, the Times Education Supplement (October 8, 2010) reports that Sydenham High School, in London, England, is encouraging students to sniff scented “memory oils” while studying and immediately before they write their standardized tests. To ensure peak results in each subject, students will use grapefruit scent for math, lavender for French and spearmint for history.

A somewhat less odoriferous approach is to have students spend just one quarter-hour writing about personally important values, such as friends and family. Female college students majoring in sciences who completed this value-affirmation exercise achieved a measurable boost in both in-class multiple choice examinations and standardized tests of physics concepts (Science, November 26, 2010). Unfortunately, male students did not experience similar improvement—they were probably confused about these things called “feelings” and “values” and needed a good six hours playing Call of Duty on their Xboxes to recover their equilibrium.

All is not lost for the boys, however. In an article in the journal Emotion (October, 2010), Michael Kraus et al reported that NBA teams whose members touched each other more frequently during play performed better than their less tactile opponents, even after the researchers controlled for player status, preseason projections and early season results. Perhaps adopting a touchy-feely approach to exam preparation would generate similarly positive results.

It has also been noted in the Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics (November 8, 2010) that there is a strong correlation between the implementation of daylight saving time and lower scores on the SATs, exams written by US students seeking entry to college. Extrapolating from this, I suggest that if we want to blow those damned Finns out of the water on the next round of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests, we should stand firm and refuse to fall forward or spring ahead. (Then again, if daylight saving time made that great a difference, Saskatchewan would lead the world in student performance.)

So, what does all this mean? I suppose that in pursuit of every ­possible marginal advantage, we could encourage students to sleep in late and show up for examinations in their jammies. Then we could have them engage in a round of pre-examination touching and exploration of their feelings (what could possibly go wrong?) before presenting them with exams printed with delicately scented inks.

Alternatively, we could remember just how artificial our evaluation and testing process is. After all, can you recall any real world situation when you were required to make dozens of critical decisions in a restricted timeframe, having deliberately been deprived of access to ­assistance from colleagues or reference materials? With that in mind, we could then care a whole lot more about learning and a lot less about testing. (Hat tip to David Brooks, whose December 6, 2010, New York Times column “Social Science Palooza” highlighted several of the ­studies referenced here.)

I welcome your comments—contact me at dennis.theobald@ata.ab.ca.