I know some things about teachers. You see, the people I love most in this world are teachers. My parents were both teachers and inspired me to enter this profession. My wife is a teacher. Some years ago, in the small Appalachian town of Hazard, Kentucky even I was a teacher. So when we talk about the teaching profession, keep in mind … this is personal to me.
In what’s unfortunately turning into a bona-fide “blog feud” between Jennifer Hemmingsen and I on educator compensation, Hemmingsen asks the important question of “what motivates teachers” and openly asks me for a response.
First, I have to say how disappointed I was in Hemmingsen for citing parts of an unpublished draft of my dissertation. I provided a draft version to the media with the caveat that it was still in the final proofing phase before being sent for binding and inclusion with the Seton Hall library. It is disappointing that Hemmingsen violated the trust I had when making the document available for media review. Sadly, I guess I’ve learned a lesson.
Even more disappointing is the fact that Hemmingsen cherry picks some of my findings to bolster her own predisposition while leaving the other half of my conclusions out of her discussion. However, in keeping with the “card game” metaphor we seem to be developing in our back and forth, it’s clear to me that academic scholarship trumps ‘gotcha’ editorials. You see, I have a responsibility in academic writing to provide a balanced and honest point of view and to critique the weaknesses of my own arguments. It would appear some editorial writers do not operate under the same ethos.
But let’s get past the personal level of this discussion and get to the policy question, which is ultimately the more important component.
The question of “what motivates teachers” was the subject of my dissertation. In a nutshell, I asked the question of whether teachers were motivated for money and economics or motivated to help kids and to be part of something greater than themselves. The answer … “yes.”
In studying the Eagle County School district (which arguably has one of the longest running and most interesting stories on performance based compensation) I found, overwhelmingly and not surprisingly, that teachers were primarily motivated to help kids. Teachers were also heavily motivated by the concept of being part of something greater than themselves, a concept noted in the literature as “public service motivation theory.”
However, I also found that although the altruistic motivators were clearly strongest, teachers also paid more attention to those things compensation was attached to (evaluation and assessment results in Eagle County’s case).
So, it’s not one or the other, but both. Teachers are motivated to help kids. Teachers are also rational people who pay attention to economic incentives.
I’ve used my findings as a possible explanation for why simple “cash for test scores” or “merit pay” schemes fail to raise student achievement. These approaches, by themselves, they don’t pull at the major levers in what motivates teachers and they usually don’t come with any real supports to help teachers improve their craft and learn from each other.
My conclusions were that we should avoid simplistic approaches advanced by many on the “performance pay” side of the argument, but we should also avoid a defense of the status quo “step and lane” system.
Deci and Ryan’s work was made popular by writer Daniel Pink, who said that compensation systems must be “adequate and fair.” I would argue the industrial “step and lane” pay system is neither and we have a great deal of evidence that educators are responding to its incentives in ways that lead us to perverse outcomes. For example, nearly 50% of educators nationally obtain advanced degrees that have an incredibly poor research track record of success in improving teaching. Compare this with the estimated 10% of Americans who have advanced degrees overall.
Think that has something to do with the ongoing compensation incentives provided with a “lane” change? I certainly do.
Frederick Herzberg also wrote about this nearly 40 years ago and told us that while compensation wasn’t necessarily a “motivator” for improvement, it did have the capacity to “demotivate” if it weren’t well attended to. I’d hold up the evidence around attrition for teachers early in their careers and labor market shortages for special education teachers as examples that we don’t have this “right” yet. Certainly working conditions and supports are part of this conversation, but so is compensation.
So, Hemmingsen is improving in her sophistication in being able to engage in this discussion – but she still doesn’t get it as she continues to try and paint me as some kind of merit-pay hawk.
To again clarify, I’m not talking about using compensation as a motivator for teachers, I’m talking about changing compensation structures to align with things that would actually be good for schools, educators, and kids. Things like creating and paying for teacher leader roles, creating time for teachers to work together collaboratively, incenting the pursuit advanced degrees or other PD options that are aligned with what their kids need, paying more to get and keep our best teachers in front of our neediest kids, front loading pay structures to get better candidates into teaching and keep them, extending the school day/year for kids that need it, and addressing teacher labor market shortage areas. And yes, performance based elements – so long as they are coupled with support systems to help teachers improve.
The possibilities are fascinating to consider – but part of the change is that we have to stop using the cash we have in such non-strategic ways and start using it smarter.
Hemmingsen also selectively takes her shots at the school organization I was proud to be part of in Eagle County, noting the high attrition rates at the inception of human capital system change in 2001 and the leadership turnover in 2007. But again, she only tells you part of the story. When I left Eagle County, the teacher attrition rate (for those not being non-renewed for performance related reasons) was in the single digits, we had solid leadership which remains in place today, and we had the highest paying salary system in the state. Further, the district has been closing the achievement gap at an amazing pace, has been recognized by the state legislature for its innovation, has had 4 Colorado Principals of the Year in as many years, and has value added results that are just startlingly good. This in a district with a 51% Hispanic student population, along with the language learner and poverty issues that accompany that demographic statistic.
The improvements with Eagle County’s results did not occur just because of a change in compensation system. Rather, leaving the step and lane system allowed the district to better move finite resources to solve problems and achieve strategic outcomes. I don’t think anyone there would say the pay was the driver. The change primarily happened because all the pieces in the organization were pulling in the same direction and toward the same goals and the district had the flexibility in its resources to address student needs.
So, what motivates teachers? Helping kids and being part of changing the world motivates teachers. But teachers are also rational people who respond to financial incentives. Our work shouldn’t be to blindly protect a near 100 year old industrial era compensation structure, but instead to think about how we build a compensation structure that takes into account teachers’ altruistic motivations and that incents them toward things that help kids and communities. Then, we would be moving toward a system that emphasizes the real underlying motivations for educators, and that uses money strategically.
Jason Glass
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 21, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Lance Ridgely
Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I don’t have a lot of data to support my beliefs, but think that teachers need more than dollars and cents to reach their true potential. I think the learning environment of the school for students and adults goes a long way to meeting personal needs. If teachers are given a rich learning atmosphere through highly effective professional development and an inquiring professional atmosphere I believe that the value of the workplace increases and offsets any differences in a monitairy structure. Perhaps a bit altruistic, but fits my vision of a highly effective school.
August 22, 2011 at 2:29 am
Marcia Powell
Jason,
I’m not against what you’ve been proposing. You’ve been saying all along that you want all of us to help build this thing, and you have shifted my perspective enough to help me believe that a simple step-and-lane system is as antiquated as the concept of tenure is in a 21st century society.
The problem I see is that the majority of teachers are motivated by altruism, but there are also a great number of them that we could classify using a Myers-Briggs personality analysis as ‘loyalists’ They have built the system in which they work, dedicated their weekends and nights to building community through coaching, or grading papers, and taught in the manner in which they were taught. The fact that the world has shifted away from loyalty as a reason for employment is second order change for many of them, especially in small rural communities where the school events focus as a type of lifeblood. We need to bridge the fear that can paralyze this process.
So let’s sit down and talk. Let’s bring in the authors of Teaching2030, who talk about teacherpreneurship. Let’s bring in SAI, IASB, and ISEA, along with the leaders of the AEAs. There’s a certain amount of dollars available, and a certain amount for which we need to advocate. The system is outdated and needs reworking in a way that values young teachers, but also values the post-graduate work I have put in to become a better innovated and educator.
One caveat concerns me. I’m sure you’re going to roll it out soon, but keep waiting to see it happen. When are the administrator discussions going to happen? There are lots of FABULOUS administrators out there(I’ve been privileged to work with many), but there are poor ones, too. Somewhere, a person across the state is making twice as much money as I am with the same amount of education, and is not making a difference. That nameless person is not advocating for kids, is ready for retirement, or takes off on long trips, week after week, on the school dime. This individual is often unwilling to adapt to technology, and has a laissez-faire attitude about the changes Iowa must adopt to be competitive in the future. Why do we continue to reward them for moving out of the classroom and continuing poor habits in the administrative culture of a building? I want innovation, but across the board, not haphazardly applied to the teachers who are in the trenches.
If we are going to rework the entire system, let’s do it right and include all the stakeholders in the payment discussions.
Thanks for listening. And for saying what you believe in, with grace, openness and style. Although we don’t always agree, you are an important part of my personal learning and reflection. YOU MATTER.
August 22, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Jason Glass
Thanks Marcia!
August 22, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Jason Glass
What you suggest would be consistent with my findings and with the prior research.
August 22, 2011 at 3:50 am
Michelle TG (@MrsTG)
Very simply, this makes sense.
However, the devil will be in the details. Making sure to continue an OPEN dialogue (as you have been SO willing to do) with all stakeholders will be crucial.
August 22, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Jason Glass
This is the plan! Thank you Michelle!
August 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Tonya Urbatsch
I attended the Education Summit and attended the panel discussion around this topic. I was interested in the ideas presented by you and by others about advanced education. I did find it to be a balanced discussion; however, one question continues to come to my mind. Kate Walsh, in the panel discussion, and you, in this article, both cite research that shows advanced study does not equate with improved student achievement. This seems counter-intuitive to me when I think of my career and I think of teachers I’ve worked with for many years as a district administrator and as a college teacher. If the research just looked at the fact of whether someone had a degree or not and did not pay any attention to the content of that degree, I understand the connection. If, however, the teachers did advanced study around their content and pedagogy, I have trouble seeing how that does not make a difference. I am assuming you are suggesting that the advanced professional development can still make a difference – if that’s the case, I understand. I have worked with college students preparing to teach, and they still have much to learn when they graduate. I have worked with teachers who have been teaching for a long time and when they receive appropriate professional development and they learn new ways of approaching old problems, in my experience, their teaching improves and their students learn more.
I appreciate the opportunity to read about your thoughts and share ideas.
August 22, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Jason Glass
Hi Tonya,
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that advanced degree study in the specific content area one teachers does lead to increased results. However, most teachers get degrees in “curriculum & instruction” or “educational administration” instead of in content areas.
A more strategic approach would be to create incentives around those degrees that are related to content.
Also, none of this should be construed to say quality PD or a quality PLC model aren’t effective. These should just be locally driven by teacher needs instead of some program as part of an advanced degree track. We can shift the money we have in the system for more teacher driven PD/PLC work and it would be a more strategic use.
August 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Barnett Berry
Jason. Poignantly put. As you know over 4 years ago – a team of teachers, working in our virtual community, put together a powerful piece on creating tge kind of performance system that students deserve – http://www.teachingquality.org/legacy/TSP4P2008.pdf
And congrats on your new post
August 22, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Jason Glass
Thanks Barnett! Still love Teaching 2030! Anyone who hasn’t picked this up should read it through. Also, it’s notable that Barnett Berry and his staff have been instrumental in building a quality strategic compensation system for pilot in Jefferson County Colorado, the largest district in the state.
What I like most about Barnett’s approach is that he involves teachers in the design and adaptation of the systems. This is absolutely the right way to go about designing and implementing these systems.
August 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Bob
Jason, will you get an Iowa Teaching License? or Administrator License?
August 23, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Jason Glass
I hadn’t planned on it Bob. My position doesn’t require either as I’m not directly teaching kids or supervising teachers. I was at one time licensed for teaching in Kentucky and in Colorado, but I’m pretty sure those have expired. Since I’m not doing classroom teaching, it’s just not necessary to get licensed here.
This fall I will be applying for an administrative license in New Jersey, in the state where I got my doctorate. It’s easier to get reciprocity on licenses if you first get licensed in the state that issued your degree.
August 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm
John Titler
I am a school board director in Eastern Iowa. I’m not sure that the personal attack on Jennifer adds much to your resume. If you are going to advocate for compensation reform that will allow for more and better professional learning and collaboration, then that’s great, but that is not what your emphasis has been. Most politicians automatically translate “teacher compensation change” into “budget cuts”. You will need to change a lot of a certain party members’ minds to do anything other than move the dollars around, which won’t solve the problem. Class sizes in our district are growing rapidly because of the current administartion’s policies. We will run out of resources to shift unless the Governor and your department make the case for the underlying changes for which you seek compensation change instead of just allowing your “plan” to be characterized as “merit pay”. It is not Jennifer’s fault or her problem that administrators like you and politicians like the Governor fail to directly and repeatedly acknowledge the great strides than can be made by fully funding existing improvement plans. There is a huge need for people in positions like yours to step forward and lead in a direct way by advocating for the PD time and expense necessary to implement the elements of change that have been proven to work. Exactly the opposite just happened in the legislature. The current budget is another hurdle for local districts to jumpor dodge on our way to improvement. I hope that you compensation plan is as compehensive as you characterize it, but in the interim, how about a little candor instead of the attacks. John Titler, Swisher, Iowa
August 24, 2011 at 3:52 am
Jason Glass
Hi John,
I’ll let the record speak for itself on who is attacking whom. This much should be clear … I don’t back down from fights.
Time will tell if I can deliver on the things I’ve been talking about. Until we know, I accept your skepticism.
August 24, 2011 at 11:38 am
John Titler
Jason – It’s good to have a fighter on the side of education change and improvement. Please don’t waste a lot of time and energy fighting with the people who are wholeheartedly on your side regarding change and improvement. The emphasis of your message is being characterized as against “step and lane” instead of for more collaboration and better PD. I have now read all your posts on this site and I understand what you are saying, but most of the politicians and the public are not understanding the nuanced approach that you are taking and ultimately it is they who must be convinced that more dollars will be necessary to accomplish the rigorous goals being set. Thanks for your efforts and keep working toward your stated goals. I beleive that all education change advocates need to continually cite the positive steps being taken, especially those that are innovative and risky. You cited Daniel Pink above and I think that it is appropriate to also cite and emphasize his principles regarding the workplace and instrinsic motivation. The increase of collaboration and emphasis on better designed PD are both cosistent with his conclusions. John Titler
October 20, 2011 at 3:15 am
Suparna Diwakar
Found the discussion very interesting. I am from Karnataka, India, and we are grappling with this issue, though in a slightly different way. There are a huge number of training programmes that teachers get to be a part of and yet a few of the elements that you have talked about, space for collaboration, reconnecting with their purpose etc, are not woven in. In Karnataka alone we have around 300000 teachers, so you can imagine the enormity of what I am referring to.
January 12, 2012 at 6:54 am
Dr. James Sutton
Then there are things that dismotivate teachers, the fastest being loss of autonomy in one’s classroom. Did you consider these? Also, few masters degrees exist specifically in the art of teaching, which is the subject matter of elementary teachers, who are two-thirds of the workforce, which is female. And those who earn a masters in a subject matter area (secondary, men) rarely teach more that four of their undergraduate courses, so of course there’s no change in teaching effectiveness when they earn a masters degree and deepen subject matter knowledge. What we need is a way for teachers to earn a masters degree in the art of teaching for both elementary and secondary teachers. In other words, the concept of advanced placement on salary schedules for advanced degrees would generate improved teaching effectiveness, if the degree were in teaching effectiveness! National certification has the standards, and self-evaluation has value, but that certification is based on one’s best day of teaching; NBPTS has a way to go.
April 18, 2012 at 12:15 am
curtjunk
Jason, I might add, from a teachers perspective, that we need to look at ALL the incentives at play for ALL involved. I can’t tell you how much I wish people would just leave me alone in the classroom. Or better yet, find a good way to measure the quality of experience the kids in my classroom have and the progress they make from the start of the year to the end of the year, pay me based upon that, and let me take care of my own professional development.
If this were to be done, you would see my I and the other teachers in my department working together fervently to improve the quality of experience the students have in our classrooms.
As it is, it seems that so many different people in decision making roles have incentives to roll out one educational initiative after another, or better yet, one initiative on top of another. None of these people have ever been in my class, so how would they know what changes need to be made in my classroom anyway.
The worst part of it all is that none of these people seems to have the sophistication necessary to tell the difference from someone who complains simply because they don’t like to work hard from someone who is concerned that the initiatives are actually doing more to prevent improvement than create it.
Administrators should be incentivized to run schools that provide a great educational experience for all the kids they have. Administrators should NOT be incentivized to start initiatives so they can tell the public about “all the great things” happening in the school.
Elected officials should be incentivized to …. God knows what…. just, please, don’t continue to allow them to make huge changes just so they can point at their “great ideas” in the next election.
Teachers should be incentivized to provide an excellent educational experience in their classroom for all of their students, NOT incentivized to take crappy classes so they can move up the pay scale.
Teachers should be incentivized to provide an excellent educational experience in their classroom for all of their students, NOT forced to complete more silly paperwork to comply with the paperwork necessary to see that the teachers are engaged in the latest initiative that will need the necessary documentation to make sure that each step of the process is fully complied with by the teachers so that the administration can be sure that all of the benchmarks have been reached insuring that all the standards will be met so that it can be reported to the school board and the community that every teacher is now highly qualified to ensure that educational initiatives that can be rolled out into the classroom can be neatly packaged up in notebooks where they can be kept while the teachers begin working on the next initiative blah blah blah….
By the way, lets make sure we look at the incentives for the students as well…..