One study that Pink discusses that really stuck with me was the study comparing the quality of artwork between commissioned and noncommissioned artists. In the study the panel of experts consistently rated the noncommissioned artwork as more creative (Pink, 2009, p.65). When reflecting on this with education I immediately thought about the popular suggestion that teachers' salary be based on student performance. To me, this is a perfect example of how ineffective that method could be. When teachers have freedom in what they teach and have the reassurance of what they are going to be paid at the end of the day, they are going to be able to use their creative mind and be a good teacher. As soon as the teacher pay is based on student performance, their creativity is stripped away. Their concern is less student centered and more on what they are going to make at the end of the day. In the study the commissioned artists found the work constraining. I could relate this to my example. If teachers were paid based on student performance, they would teach by the book and not feel the freedom of teaching in their own way.
This was just one example I could relate to education that really had an impact on me. There is so much valuable information that can be taken from this book and applied to education and life in general. A great read!
Teacher pay based on student performance is a landmine, and I admire you for commenting on it in the realm of this book analysis. It's very hard, as a practicing teacher, to make an argument against teacher pay based on student performance. If you make too much noise about it, people will wonder if you are worried about your own student's performance or about having to work harder. Sadly, it is really only the classroom teacher who can fully understand why this method will just not work. I like that Dan Pink wasn't talking about education at all, but makes a very sound argument against this kind of payment/incentive. Another lesson I take out of your analysis is that if we know this kind of motivation won't work as teachers, why are we still using it as a motivator for our students?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight (and the Jon Stewart clips..)!
Rhonda
As soon as the teacher pay is based on student performance, their creativity is stripped away.
ReplyDeleteI do so agree with you and Pink. Good teachers know how to motivate learners and learners need to be able to have some time to learn what they are interested in learning. It seems to me that when I read the forum on how we would want to structure our days of teaching, there was a tremendous amount of attention payed to what students were interested in learning. I remember back to a Middle Level Institute back in the late 90's where I went to a work shop on student driven curriculum. I think Gert Nesin was involved in the presentation. The idea was out there then but we are moving further and further away from that. We need to move closer.
The point you make about teacher salary and student performance is a good one. I found myself imagining what would happen if teachers' salaries were based on how well the students scored on standardized testing and other things. For one, if teachers were paid more for higher test scores, they would use every tool in the box, and be creating their own tools. They would be striving for excellence and to have every student have outstanding results on every test or homework paper. Not only would teachers' performance improve magnificently, but they would be producing some very smart, and likely happy students as well.
ReplyDelete