Critical Reflection: "Pay for Performance"

The idea of “paying” students money for improved and/or “good” performances in school (particularly on standardized tests) is a consistently controversial topic in public education – one that invites strong opinions both for and against the effort, even though it has been around for well over a decade.
Those in favor of “pay for performance” agreements often point to the effectiveness of incentives and bonuses in the “real” world, for example the workplace, and refer to research studies that seem to indicate a correlation between monetary awards and increased student achievement. For instance, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University recently found that reward programs lead to an average gain of four percentage points on standardized state reading tests (Robelen, 2008). Likewise, the local school board for Coshocton, Ohio found that students’ math scores were higher in years when rewards were offered compared to years when they were not, perhaps suggesting an important connection between financial incentives and academic performances (Viadero, 2008).
In a sense, the argument for “paying” students boils down this: Many students already receive financial rewards for their scholastic achievements – either from their parents/relatives for “As and Bs” on their report cards or in the form of academic scholarships (at both the secondary and post-secondary levels). As a result, the concept/practice of rewarding students with money for their school achievements is not a new one (nor is it necessarily harmful).
Further, since students (like more or less all people) seem to work harder and do better when rewarded with things for their efforts (i.e. candy or pizza parties or “free time” or gift certificates or homework passes or movies or field trips), and each of these things costs money anyway (paid either by the teacher or the school), wouldn’t it be easier if we dropped the pretense and simply gave them cash instead?
People on the other side of the issue, however, feel that offering students financial incentives leads to false academic performances – performances that primarily reflect the students’ desire for money rather than their actual ability or content knowledge. They argue that cash incentive programs do not “teach” students the inherent personal and societal value of education, only the financial (Viadero, 2008). For instance, as Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing explains, “Bribing kids for higher test scores – or paying teachers bounties for their students’ work – is similar to giving them steroids. Short – term performance might improve, but the long-term effects can be very damaging” (Toppo, p. 3A, 2008).
Additionally, opponents of the “pay for performance” concept point out the fact that most of studies of the programs are done in charter and private schools where regulations differ from full-fledged public schools. Also, since the concept remains rather controversial, most incentive programs are typically funded by/with private donations from individuals and organizations. Therefore, opponents argue, it is difficult to say how these programs would work on a wide-scale basis, particularly in public schools with taxpayer money providing the cash for students’ academic rewards.
Regardless, the idea of “paying” students continues to attract a great deal of interest and attention, especially in the current era of “school accountability” when the funding and/or future of many schools relies on how well (or how poorly) students perform on standardized tests. As a result, many large public school districts, for instance New York City, are examining incentive programs as a possible method for improving students’ academic achievement.
In a recent New York Times article, “Next Question: Can Students Be Paid to Excel?” journalist Jennifer Medina explains that over 200 public schools in New York City are currently experimenting with incentive programs. She notes that in a dozen or so schools, students, principals, and teachers are all able to receive incentive money based on test scores (Medina, 2008). The results/details of these schools’ performances on the New York State math and ELA exams compared to other schools has not yet been published, but the fact remains that nearly everyone in these schools has an explicit financial incentive for performing well.
In terms of public schools, though, Texas was one of the first states to offer cash rewards to students for performing well on tests (in their case Advanced Placement subject tests) and the results have generally been favorable (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). A study at Cornell University, for instance, found increases in both SAT scores and the number of students admitted to colleges in Texas schools that participate in the incentive program (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). As a result, in the past several years, many other states and school districts have followed Texas’ lead and have begun offering financial rewards of one sort or another to their students.
Ultimately, the idea of “pay for performance” elicits strong reactions and responses in many people. At first, it may seem corrupt and unethical. We’re paying students for something they’re supposed to be doing anyway? However, as one continues to examine the concept it becomes difficult to ignore (and consequently unravel) the tangled relationship between schools, students, and money. One of the basic tenets/lessons of education is that if you try hard and do well you will be “rewarded.” Of course, in one sense the reward is entirely personal, meaning you will become a knowledgeable and socially aware member of society. However, in a much larger (and some would argue more important) sense, the reward is financial. Quite simply, you will (most likely) have the opportunity to work “better” jobs and, as a result, will enjoy the accompanying salaries and benefits (not the least of which is social status). Therefore, it seems reasonable for schools to at least consider the possibility of “pay for performance” programs since, in a very basic way, it is how the world already works anyway.

Cash for school grades? it works. (2008, January 28). Christian Science Monitor, pp. 8.

Medina, J. (2008, March 5). Next question: can students be paid to excel? The New York Times,
pp. 1A.

Robelen, E. (June 2008). Reading scores given ‘bump’ by student incentives, study finds.
Education Week. 27(39), 8-8.

Toppo, G. (2008, January 28). Kids’ good grades pay off-literally; controversial programs offer
cash incentives. USA Today, pp. 3A.

Viadero, D. (February 2008). Students in cash-incentives study score higher in math. Education
Week, 27(25) 6-6.