So I was reading the first couple chapters of Freakonomics the other day and came across a interesting concept that related to our readings for today. In the 1970's, researchers wanted to find the motivation behind people who donate blood. They discovered that when people are given a small stipend for blood rather than being praised for their charity, they tend to give blood less often. The stipend turned this act of charity into a cheap way to make a few dolla dolla bills. Over summer I worked at a camp and one of my fellow councilors and I went to donate blood. Soon after, we had to lifeguard for free swim. We were stationed on the floating dock in the water. Everything was going fine WHEN SUDDENLY she hit the deck. She just passed out right then and there, I’m guessing from the blood loss and the excessive heat exposure. Of course, she wasn’t ecstatic about the whole situation, but I remember her commenting, "It was worth it." I’m sure if she got the $5 stipend for giving blood her comments would have been much different, "all this for 5 bucks?"
I’m pretty dang sure a large, LARGE majority of teachers are not here for the money. We are here because we want to contribute some good before we leave this place. However, laws are now being passed to reward teaching for higher test scores by their students. These rewards consist of varying amounts of money added to their salary. This seems like it would be a great idea, who doesn’t want a little more money? However, I’m just worried that offering money to teachers for better test scores is going have an undesirable effect.
I was wondering what you fellers and ladies think about the money rewards teachers can receive for better student test scores. Do you think they could possibly cause negative change such as in the blood donation study?

I'm not sure it would have such a negative result, because teachers who care about children will certainly not become worse teachers if they are offered extra money. I don't think it would result in less teachers either, since teaching is not completely volunteer work, I mean, teachers need money to eat too. I don't think that the amount of money offered in the bonuses is enough to attract someone to teaching who shouldn't be a teacher- someone who does not care about students.

Now, I do not think it is necessarily fair to give bonuses to teachers simply because their students scored higher on tests. I'm sure they are great teachers, but there are also great teachers who work at high poverty schools, etc. whose students do not perform as well on tests simply because they are not encouraged at home or exposed to reading, writing, etc. outside the classroom. It is not the teacher's fault if his/her students do not get good test scores for reasons that are beyond the teacher's immediate control. I think the actual TEACHER should be taken into consideration when giving bonuses, not just test scores.

How should it be determined, then, which teachers receive bonuses? The problem with using test scores to determine bonuses is that while they do not necessarily reflect what we might want to call "good teaching," they are nonetheless readily observable and easy to rank, since they are already numerical...

What other criteria could we use? "How Much A Teacher Cares About Students" is not easy to turn into a number ;] It's very difficult to quantify "learning" in general, if you acknowledge that test scores are not reliable indicators. Even more difficult to quantify "teaching," or "quality of teaching..." Can we ever get past this paradox of numbers with respect to evaluating the quality of education? How else might we measure student/teacher excellence, or how else might we define "excellence" so as to avoid the problem of numerical measurement?

Ever since doing a unit project on No Child Left Behind, I have become pretty-much against standardized testing. They do not measure accurately the intelligence of the student and certainly not the work of the teacher. We talked about multiple intellegences in one of my classes the other day... standardiz(s?)ed testing does not does on abilities outside of the core subjects, which may be a student's strength. So should teachers recieve bonuses for their test scores? Personally, I think not. Someone shouldn't get extra money because their class can spit out answers to math problems that they will probably forget how to work halfway through the summer. (Disclaimer: don't take that as a generalization that all teachers whose kids do well on the tests are bad teachers).

I think everyone has made some really good points about the whole bonus issue. I believe the poeple behind the program had good intentions, but how the decision is fair seems to be the kind of question that can never be answered. There are certainly some very good teachers whose students will never make good grades, despite their best efforts. There are also teachers (some of who I have observed) who are practically oblivious to the idea that they are supposed to help children learn, and their students might blow standardized tests out of the water. I know that teachers hold the key to knowledge, but how can we factor in where a school is located, what type of students attend, how incomes might affect living and learning styles, and all the other elements that can determine student performance on a standardized test? There is too much difference among students to compare teachers on the same scale.

In my opinion, the bonus program is too "sloppy" for lack of a better word. There is no way to FAIRLY determine who should receive a bonus unless these factors are heavily considered, and that is practically impossible

This topic makes a really good point Jim!
Personally I would prefer to teach in an inner city school or some school that has children who are less fortunate. True, there will probably not be bonuses there for good test scores because test scores may not be as good as the school where all the kids from the suburbs go. BUT, the reward emotionally for me is so much greater. To better a child's life who may hardly stand a chance in this world of education, is FAR more rewarding than all my children getting a 98% on the EOGs. I feel like teachers shy away from underpriviledged schools because they know there will be no rewards/bonuses at these places. THESE PLACES are the ones that need good teachers more than anywhere else! I think maybe it depends on the teacher. I may be a poor teacher with no bonuses but I'll be able to say I impacted lives in a real way. I'm not saying we can't impact lives in suburban schools as well, but I'm saying the bonus just doesn't matter that much to me. I'm more like your friend who gave blood. The reward goes far beyond money for me.
~Lauren~

I want a bonus if my students get good test scores. I want a bonus if my students get bad test scores. I think bonuses could work but everone believes there are too many variables. I dont think a bench mark grade is a good way to justify a bonus. A percent increase on test scores in your respective school could be a possible alternative. That way in a low income school, if you are an exceptional teacher you would be more likely to get a bonus. I am sure you all agree that bring a "D" or "F" average up is much easier than bringing up an "A" or "B". That way more teachers might be a little more likely to go to these low income schools. There couls be other positive effects of a bonus. I know that money is not the reason people generally choose this profession but the opportunty to get a little extra in the form of a bunus is much better than no bonuses at all.