The Southwest Voice

All > Columnists > Education
From the Chalkboard: Merit pay for teachers
Topics:
Anonymous user Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:02:04 PST
Viewed 496 times
0 responses 0 comments While real education reform is unlikely to take place as long as school choice and competition is resisted, many states are embarking on an innovative strategy to increase student achievement –– merit pay. In several states across the country, teachers are receiving bonuses if their students increase their test scores.

Paying teachers based on merit sounds like a good idea. It relies on the power of incentives. Knowing that success will be rewarded will motivate teachers to be more diligent in lesson planning, presentation, evaluation and follow-up. It would also encourage more talented people to consider entering the teaching profession. Supporters argue that teachers will strive to improve test scores if they can increase their salary by thousands each year.

In Plano, Texas, a $260 million dollar project has begun to determine whether bonuses can in fact produce gains in student achievement. State Senator Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, who authored the Texas Reform Bill passed by lawmakers, stated, “We want to see a new philosophy in our schools, one that says you reward your best employees who go above and beyond, who make a difference in the lives of children.” 

Governor Rick Perry stated, “Texas is going to take the national lead in rewarding educational excellence and attracting top performing teachers.”

You have to give Texas credit. At least they are trying something to improve student achievement in their states. As might be expected, teacher groups are resisting efforts to implement merit pay, just as they are opposed to any other reform plans.

However, I must agree with their skepticism that the plan is likely to succeed.

Teachers argue that tying bonuses to test scores will tempt many teachers to spend an inordinate amount of time teaching the test to the exclusion of the required curriculum. It could also create adversarial relationships among teachers based on who gets the extra pay. Some teachers will be reluctant to have certain students in their class if they believe it would drag their scores down.  It would also lead teachers to leave low-achieving schools and seek positions in higher achieving schools, thereby widening the achievement gap. 

Another possible disadvantage for teachers in schools where achievement is already high is it would be hard for them to show large gains. Also, could poor, low-achieving, Special Ed or limited English students achieve similar gains as high achieving students, even if their teachers were equally talented? 

And finally, as economist Steven Levitt points out, “Raising the stakes of standardized testing will increase the amount of teacher cheating.”

An alternative to merit pay based on test scores is a more subjective determination of teacher effectiveness by principal evaluation. While there are also inherent problems with principal evaluation, principals as a whole are the best determiners of teacher quality, when a consistent program of goal setting, observation, collaboration, in-service training and cooperative evaluation takes place. 

Granted, all principals would have difficulty allocating merit pay fairly and accurately, but most would embrace such a plan if unions would not continue to protect inept teachers. Making it easier to fire ineffective teachers could improve teacher quality while avoiding the complexity of a merit pay system.

There are some interesting approaches to paying teachers more and differently, but given the many tricky issues involved in merit pay –– and serious union opposition –– it will be difficult to implement. 

But, let's give credit for trying something different. Even an imperfect system is better than the status quo. In any case, all eyes will be focused on the Texas program to see whether their experiment pays off.

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation