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)