Reference no: EM133149143
Incentives, Performance, and Schools
Like organizations in other industries, the Houston Independent School District (HISD) believed it could direct, motivate, and improve performance with monetary rewards. The goal was to improve the skills and test scores of students at 40 underperforming schools.
Officials thought the underlying reasons for the underperformance were low performing teachers, as those at the target schools were twice as likely to be rated "ineffective" or "needs improvement" than in well-performing schools. Worse still, teachers at these same schools were half as likely to be rated "highly effective." School district leaders reasoned that offering money-$5000 signing bonuses-would attract better teachers to the poor performing schools.
Officials spent nearly $7 million to incentivize highly rated teachers to move to the target schools in the 2017-18 school year, and they planned to spend a similar amount in 2018-2019. But there was a problem-it didn't work. The 40 schools experienced tremendous turnover-40-60 percent of teachers at worst schools quit-but the teachers who replaced them had nearly identical (poor) ratings when they arrived.
This left officials scratching their heads. The dismal results might have been due to the fact they had no performance criteria for teachers to qualify for the bonus and move to one of the 40 schools. Moving to the worst performing schools could be perceived as very risky, as highly rated teachers' performance could drop in a more challenging, underperforming school. Adding to the risk, some teachers would presumably be giving up a position at a "better" school. Of course, it also was possible $5000 just wasn't enough for many.87
What is the problem as you see it? What are some causes of the problem? What might solve the problem?