Merit Pay Finale

Watching the above video of President Obama (then on the campaign trail) brings up some other interesting points about Merit Pay. He opposes the idea as it is traditionally thought of: bonuses for teachers whose students provided high standardized test scores. He is for Merit Pay if there is a more integrated approach to the system of performance evaluation (such as some methods described in earlier posts). Things like degrees earned, extra education sought, and incentives for teachers who work in undesirable areas (inner city or rural outlying areas)- all this in addition to raises for teachers across the board and the creation of a “career ladder” for teachers to work towards.

I think his ideas are great, his execution may be lacking what with the state of the country he inherited in such disrepair- so many things seemingly far worse than we thought. I hope that one day some changes can be made and possibly a fair Merit Pay system implemented. There are inequities that need to be addressed, for example a scenario that involved an extraordinary teacher being paid the same as a lazy one, simply because they have equal seniority.

Merit Pay Part 3

The Phi Delta Kappan reported on an initiative begun in 2001 to reform inner-city Chattanooga schools. The plan was multi-faceted (it included the firing of every teacher in the district- who were then asked to reapply, mentoring programs to train teachers, additional staff to support instruction, and more collaborative leadership in each school, among many other things) but became mostly known for introducing financial incentives to raise the quality of the teachers in the district and the therefore the quality of the education received by the students.

Performance bonuses of up to $5,000 for teachers who showed student gains were a major part of the program in addition to free graduate school and mortgage loans. This reform project was a rousing success: raising seven out of eight schools from an F to an A in the span of five years. It is an example often cited by Merit Pay proponents, but the bonuses were just one part of drastic large-scale reform that resulted in the creation of a supportive and professional environment and teachers feeling more respected in their communities.

Large scale overhauls like this one aside, there have been other instances noted where a merit pay initiative has resulted in little more than fraud. These include teachers focusing almost exclusively on one test, educators changing test scores, or assisting students with the answers. There is also evidence of schools tactical classification of special education and ELL students as well as misuses of punitive procedures to guarantee student absenteeism on test day (suspension, etc.).

It's worth noting that each scenario I researched returned positive results, albeit alongside a bevy of caveats. I think that a merit pay system could work, as long as it was designed with teacher input and not just a new set of criteria thrust upon them. It seems probable that confident teachers who already strive for excellence would be in favor of salary or bonuses based on performance if they could only ensure unbiased and fair evaluation of their abilities and effectiveness.

(Source: Phi Beta Kappan)

Merit Pay Part 2

For some the argument for Merit Pay can be boiled down to an age-old aphorism: “You get what you pay for.” This is based on the natural assumption that a person would work harder if their paycheck depended on it. Research finds an alternative school in Michigan whose teachers were tasked with raising course completion rates in order to receive bonuses. When their results are held up against another comparable school, it’s obvious they succeeded. However when you look at the total picture you begin to see that courses were completed, but the GPAs dropped and student pass rates fell. Admittedly a more comprehensive Merit Pay plan would have encompassed more performance indicators, but it’s worth noting the goal attached to bonuses was indeed met.

The other problems with Merit Pay are evaluation and who decides the worth of each teacher. Thomas Toch attested to why relying on test scores is not the answer, noting that “less than fifty percent of public school teachers teach the subjects or grades levels in which students are tested.” He also relates that many teachers are unwilling to have standardized test scores play any role in their possible Merit Pay. Many teachers are not opposed to a more comprehensive evaluation method however, one that incorporates multiple evaluators that is based on multiple indicators such as ability to plan, teach, test, manage, and motivate.

These journal articles illustrate several points. First: upon many outward appearances it seems that merit pay works. But often when you look closer, as in the first paragraph, you can often find a flaw. Also, when taking into account just how many teachers are left out of the standardized test model of assessment, you realize just how faulty that method would be. This is of course in addition to the variety of factors often sited when educators list the weaknesses of standardized tests: possible anxieties, student unwillingness, a variety of biases, etc.

(Sources: Phi Beta Kappan, and Peabody Journal of Education)