Studs Terkel

Introduction

Issue & Questions

What is good teaching?  This question is highly debatable.  In the end, most would agree, good teaching centers around functional and healthy relationships between learner and educator, high expectations, effective monitoring of the learner’s progression, well thought out plan for the learner or at least a design to keep the learner actively progressing through the intended outcomes, etc.  This list could go on and on.  The problem with the ongoing list of good teaching comes from the evaluator’s perception of healthy relationships, high expectations, and effective monitoring.  One evaluator may require daily assessments; whereas, another may see an over abundance of assessments as time consuming.  For example, in many elementary classrooms in Seattle Public Schools, teachers are asked to give students an exit ticket following a math lesson.  These exit tickets give the educator an idea of students’ understanding of the given concept or process.  One evaluator sees this process as closely monitoring the child’s understanding and thus his or her progression.  The other evaluator may see this as time consuming and lacking in classic imprinting, where the child simply needs more time to allow for the material to “sink-in”.  Either way, defining criteria for good teaching is incredibly complex.  Evaluating educators’ effectiveness is even more complex. 

So, how does a massive entity like educating children in the United States get measured?   One popular notion today is through merit pay.  Wikipedia defines it as, “Merit pay is a term describing performance-related pay, most frequently in the context of educational reform. It provides bonuses for workers who perform their jobs effectively, according to measurable criteria.”  So, what’s the problem?  If you do a good job, you get paid more, right?  The debate stems from the final two words of the definition, “measurable criteria”.  In the case of educating students, what can we use as measurable criteria?  One answer may be standardized tests.  In the state of Washington, this is the MSP or the HSPE.  The MSP measures students’ core academic subjects from third grade to eighth, while the HSPE measures high school students.  The core academic areas on the MSP are math, science, reading and writing.  The HSPE covers the same academic core areas as the MSP.  Another measurable criteria often discussed in the circle of merit pay are Value Added.  Value Added, as defined by the Los Angeles Times is:

Value-added is a statistical approach that estimates a teacher's effectiveness at raising student performance on standardized tests. In essence, it projects a child's future performance by using past scores -- in this case, on math and English tests. That projection is then compared to the student's actual results. The difference is the "value" that the teacher added or subtracted. Comparing each student to him or herself in the past largely controls for differences in students' backgrounds (Los Angeles Times, 2011).

The teacher is then evaluated based on his or her students’ test scores from previous years in comparison to that student’s score within the current academic year.  For example, a fifth grade teacher’s value added score would be compared to how the student did in his or her past two years.  This graph illustrates the students progression or lack of progression from grades 3^rd though 5^th.

Value-added and state standardized tests are two popular approaches to evaluated educators.  For the sake of length, I will focus on the debate over the effectiveness of, only, these two criteria. 

There are many difficult questions stemming from merit pay.  This blog will help answer and address these questions:

• Does merit-based pay improve education?
• Does it improve the quality of teaching by incentivizing hard work?
• Does it help attract and retain quality teachers and weed out bad teachers?
• Does merit pay take the fun and passion out of teaching and over-focus it on measures?
• Does it create undesirable competition between teachers and undercut cooperation?
• Does it discourage teachers from going to needy schools?
• Can teacher merit be successfully measured?
• Does varying student performance get in the way?
• Is merit pay fairer to teachers?
• Does it fall prey to principal cronyism?
• Does it encourage teachers to cheat?
• Does the market demonstrate the importance of pay for performance?
• If teachers should be paid more in general, is merit pay the best way to do it?
• What do past examples of merit pay around the world demonstrate?
• Overall, is merit pay for teachers good education policy?

Why is the topic of merit pay compelling?

            What is good teaching?  How do we “reward” our strong teachers?  It is difficult to say what good teaching is.  One evaluator can walk into a classroom and call the teaching practices innovative, another may call it basic; for this reason, attempting to link teacher pay to “good teaching” is compelling.  Designing a structural system to support our good teachers and terminate our poor teachers is being demanded.  Unions are scrutinized for supporting and saving poor teachers.  Currently, district budgets are stretched thin and financial support is tight.  Teacher salaries and benefits constitute 54 percent of district budgets (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).  Senior teachers’ pay is obviously higher than teachers with less experience.  Proponents of getting-rid-of-seniority in teacher unions feel money could be saved by bringing in young teachers.  “Districts across the country are now re-thinking layoff strategies… seniority-based system certainly has advantages, it is hard to argue that it is a system in the best interest of student achievement” (Goldhaber & Theobald, 2010).  What does this have to do with merit pay?  Ranking teachers by seniority is often replaced with effectiveness of teacher; the effectiveness of the teacher is, often, determined by the teacher’s calculated value-added or students’ test scores. 

            The debate of ranking and evaluating teachers is not new.  It has gone on for several decades, which in itself is compelling.  So, how do we rank our teachers?  Test scores are one way, as mentioned earlier, and value-added.  These two merit pay based markers have their limitations.  However, they do show student growth, at least to certain extent. 

Nature of the Controversy

Pros

·         Americans value hard work and results, and our capitalist system hinges upon rewarding such results. Most professions offer bonuses and salary increases to exemplary employees. Why should teaching be the exception? The fact that a sloppy teacher and a dedicated teacher earn the same salary just doesn’t sit right with most people.

·         Incentivized teachers will work harder and produce better results. What motivation do teachers currently have to go above and beyond the job's basic requirements? The simple possibility of extra cash would most likely translate into smarter teaching and better results for our children.

·         Merit Pay programs will help recruit and retain the nation’s brightest minds. It’s the odd teacher who hasn’t considered leaving the classroom and entering the corporate workplace for the twin benefits of less hassle and more money potential. Particularly intelligent and effective teachers might reconsider leaving the profession if they felt that their extraordinary efforts were being recognized in their paychecks.

·         Teachers are already underpaid. Merit Pay would help address this injustice. Teaching is due for a renaissance of respect in this country. How better to reflect the esteemed way we feel about educators than through paying them more? And the highest performing teachers should be first in line for this financial recognition.

·         We are in the middle of a teaching shortage. Merit pay would inspire potential teachers to give the profession more consideration as a viable career choice, rather than a personal sacrifice for the higher good. By tying teaching salaries to performance, the profession would look more modern and credible, thus attracting young college graduates to the classroom.

·         With American schools in crisis, shouldn’t we be open to trying almost anything new in the hopes of making a change? If the old ways of running schools and motivating teachers aren’t working, perhaps it’s time to think outside of the box and try Merit Pay. In a time of crisis, no valid ideas should be quickly denied as possible solution.

Cons

·         Virtually everyone agrees that designing and monitoring a Merit Pay program would be a bureaucratic nightmare of almost epic proportions. Many major questions would have to be adequately answered before educators could even consider implementing Merit Pay for teachers. Such deliberations would inevitably take away from our real goal, which is to focus on the students and give them the best education possible.

·         Good will and cooperation between teachers will be compromised. In places that have previously tried variations of Merit Pay, the results have often been unpleasant and counter-productive competition between teachers. Where teachers once worked as a team and shared solutions cooperatively, Merit Pay can make teachers adopt a more “I’m out for myself only” attitude. This would be disastrous for our students, no doubt.

·         Success is difficult, if not impossible, to define and measure. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has already proven how the various unleveled playing fields in the American education system inherently set up a wide variety of standards and expectations. Consider the diverse needs of English Language Learners, Special Education Students, and low income neighborhoods, and you’ll see why it would be opening a messy can of worms to define standards of success for American schools when the stakes are cash in the pockets of real teachers.

·         Opponents to Merit Pay argue that a better solution to the current educational crisis is to pay all teachers more. Rather than design and regulate a messy Merit Pay program, why not simply pay teachers what they are already worth?

·         High-stakes Merit Pay systems would inevitably encourage dishonesty and corruption. Educators would be financially motivated to lie about testing and results. Teachers might have legitimate suspicions of principal favoritism. Complaints and lawsuits would abound. Again, all of these messy morality issues serve only to distract from the needs of our students who simply need our energies and attentions to learn to read and success in the world.

           

Barack Obama's plan for EDUCATION FUNDING, MERIT PAY

The audio is not very good on this video, but the video does summarize President Obama's stance on merit pay.

Salary Pay Scale

Literature Review

How are pay salaries constructed for public educators in the state of Washington?

In the state of Washington, salaries are based on years teaching and degrees held. For example, a first year teacher with a Bachelor’s degree starts at $34,048. A teacher with a PhD and 16 years of teaching experience is paid $64,174. Within this range, teachers are given pay increases incrementally each year spent teaching. Pay increases are also given based on Masters and Doctrine degrees (Office of Superintendent of Instruction, 2011). In short, with experience and additional education, teachers earn more money.

Merit Pay Salary System

Merit pay based salary scales are determined by the effectiveness of the teacher; the effectiveness of the teacher is determined by the principal’s evaluation and/or students’ tests scores. In some cases, value added is used to evaluate teacher effectiveness. Value-added is a formula used to show student growth. This graph (Los Angeles Times, 2011) shows how a particular student’s test score increases/decreases from year to year. In this case, the teacher would be evaluated on how the student faired on the current academic year in comparison to the previous two years.

The two examples of salary scales are vastly different from one another.  However, the amount of money distributed among the teachers is the same.  No matter what a state or district uses, the total funds remain the same.  Meaning, if you give more money to a teacher who has strong test scores, money must be taken a way from another teacher.  The merit pay salary system assumes the money is being taken away from a “lesser” teacher. 

Pro union versus Anti-union sentiment

Historically, unions have backed seniority-based pay scales.  In the minds of union leaders and union backers, seniority has been fair, whereas, merit pay salary system incentives have gaps.  Kathy Boudreau, the president of the Massachusettes Teachers Associates, finds two inherent faults of the merit pay system.  She says, “What if my principal happens to like me and dislike you” (Drevitch, 2006).  Boudreau is identifying chronyism as a producer of establishing merit for teachers’ ability.  Boudreau also finds issues with collaboration.  She says, “If I’m a great teacher with great practices, I might think, ‘Why would I want to share?” (Drevitch, 2006).  Merit-pay salaries can only afford to support so many “teacher leaders” in a school.  Not all “effective teachers” would receive pay compensation.  This is likely to increase competition between teachers. 

On the other hand, advocates for merit pay systems fault the idea of rewarding experienced teachers over “more qualified” younger teachers.  Bob Luebke, a proponent of merit pay states, “There is considerable research showing teachers with masters degrees perform no better than teachers without” (Luebke, 2011).  Goldhaber and Theobald (2010) contest our current pay scale system does not only reward seniority, but it also promotes layoffs and Reduction in Force (RIFs) for equally or more qualified teachers. 

Background information on unions

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1678.html

The above URL goes in depth on union organizations; history, conflict, murder, social injustice, racism, child labor laws, women’s suffrage, etc.  In 1901, 99 percent of the population made less than the top 1 percent.  In same year, Andrew Carnegie made 23 million dollars.  In contrast, 18 million of the 29 million United States residents made only $500 dollars a year (U.S. History.com, 2010).  This was below the cost of living at the time. 

I have included this link to help readers promote their own knowledge construction around unions.  It is important to understand the historical context of unions to fully understand the issues addressed in this blog. 

The Great Divide in Merit Pay

Merit pay has many different definitions. Ghorpade (1999), a professor of management at the San Diego State University says, “Part of the controversy over merit pay is thus a question of definition: two people talking about merit pay can be thinking of different combinations of rewards and outputs”.  For this paper/blog, I am identifying merit pay as increasing teacher pay based on improving student test scores.  Improvement could look like improving a group of students’ test scores from the previous year; perhaps, a cohort of students improved their scores over the course of a year.   For example, 75 percent of the students passed the math portion of the MSP in fourth grade.  In fifth grade, the same group has a passing proficiency of 80%.  The fifth grade teacher receives “merit” because he or she increased the test scores.  Value added is similar, in that it looks at previous test scores over the span of two years to judge the merits of the teacher. 

As you saw in the “Pros and Cons” portion of the blog, you can see how divided individuals are about receiving pay based on “merits”.  Now, if someone is discussing merit pay in the sense of increasing pay for “hard to fill” teaching positions, most will agree with this sort of merit pay.  In fact, a survey conducted in Washington state says 70 percent of the respondents of 60,000 agreed with extra compensation for teachers in “hard to fill” teaching positions.  The U.S. Department of Education’s Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) found, “teachers of disadvantaged and low-achieving students are, if anything, more supportive of merit pay than the average teacher” (Goldhaber, 2010).  In a Phi Delta Kappa 2000 survey (Goldhaber, 2010), only 3 percent of teachers are willing to use student test scores as a factor in determining salaries.  A 2005 poll (Goldhaber, 2005) by the Teaching Commission found two-thirds of the general public and one-third of teachers in favor of raising pay if the increase were tied to performance.

As you see, educational scholars and teachers are divided.  Maybe, the definition is too broad.  Perhaps, the measurement tool is not accurate enough.  The multiple variables in using student performance as an evaluation tool make it difficult to isolate and define effective teaching.  No matter the reason, scholars and experts in the field find it challenging to justify merit pay based on student performance.  Often, political leaders are in for the forefront of this issue, whether they are for or against. 

Issues with basing pay on student performance

In research, isolating the variable is key.  In educational research, it is nearly impossible to isolate the variable.  This makes it difficult to find what is effective and ineffective. With that said, the researcher must be able to triangulate the data.  Unfortunately, in my research of merit pay systems, so much of the information is tainted with politics.  Katherine C. Boles and Vivian Troen (2005) introduce the reader of this article to the historical aspect of merit pay salary system.  First, they point out this issue has been around for a long time.  They also bring up a problem with paying for performance and the loss of certain subject areas that are not being assessed:

"The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since” (Boles, K.C. & Troen, V., 2005). 

According to proponents of merit pay, the issue is what’s the motivation?  Why would a teacher try, if he or she does not gain anything for his or her student scores?  Beth Lewis, from About.com illustrates this notion:

"Incentivized teachers will work harder and produce better results. What motivation do teachers currently have to go above and beyond the job's basic requirements? The simple possibility of extra cash would most likely translate into smarter teaching and better results for our children” (about.com).

Conclusion

The literature is divided.  It is important to read both sides and talk with experts in the field.  Do not allow yourself to get caught up in the quick quips of media television.  Politics have always been involved and because politicians get so much attention, their messages are often heard.  In conclusion, you have to decide.  You have to analyze whether teachers are motivated by money to incentivize or does merit pay simply mean teaching to the test? 

Debate over Merit Pay

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/518/merit-pay-debate.html

This is an interesting debate over merit pay and its effectiveness.  It is from PBS.org and helps an individual understand the pros and cons of the issue.  I cannot say it changed my mind either way, and I do not expect it to change anyone else' mind.  However, it does give more perspective and information on the issue.  This is not an audio or video debate.  The debate transcribed and the individuals' answers are written out in text.  Check it out! 

Critique and Discussion

           Merit pay for student performance did not work in the past, so what makes individuals feel as though it will work now.  Troen and Boles (2005) showed us what happened in England, around 1710.  Merit pay forced educators to teach to the test.  Yes, test scores improved, but, at what cost?  When students’ test scores are evaluated through the subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, the other subjects are left aside.  History lessons are put aside to focus on the “important” subjects.  Losing out on this curriculum is unfortunate because of the rich stories within.  Perhaps more tragic is the loss of learning.  Take Troen and Boles reference to merit pay’s history, ironically, if more educational leaders understood the history, they would see how it failed in the past and is doomed to fail in the present.

            History tells us merit pay did not work.  But, this is a new and improved system.  Some would argue we have learned from the mistakes in the past.  Through a discussion with Cashel Toner (2011), a principal in Seattle Public Schools, she told me how the new merit pay system works in her district.  In short, teachers are eligible for pay increases by receiving at least two “innovative markings” on their yearly evaluations.  They must also receive two “proficient” markings.  Of course, an educator could receive all “innovative” marks on his or her evaluation.  I would assume this would improve the likelihood of that person earning one of these “career ladder” positions.  Of course, these evaluations are linked in some way to student performance because all teacher evaluations must show some connection to student measuring tools. 

There are several inherent problems with this ideology.  First, the issue of subjectivity between evaluating good teaching; a principal in one school will likely vary from a principal in another school when it comes to evaluating good teaching.  I have worked for four principals now, and everyone has had a different view on effective teaching.  Next, there is the issue of only two teachers in each school allotted this opportunity to this particular “career ladder”.  This means more competition between teachers.  Which cannot be good.  It also means less collaboration.  Either way, the students eventually lose.  Finally, only two thousand dollars is allotted to each teacher in these positions.  This is only a four percent increase for a teacher making fifty thousand dollars a year.  The pay increase is not necessarily a raise, either.  It means more responsibility. 

Do not get me wrong, if given the opportunity, I would take the position.  My room is already used as a classroom lab site for the district, so why not get paid for it.  I would, however, have to think about the implications of taking this position in spite of my colleagues.  I can only imagine the animosity that will develop in this system.  I use the word “will” because the system is merely in its infancy and we have yet to see the fallout that may occur after its full implementation. 

            Reference back to the Washington State pay scale (OSPI, 2010) for teachers, the current pay for teachers is not high enough.  You cannot expect to attract the highest quality in teachers when you pay them slightly more than a yearly salary of forty thousand dollars after at least six years of schooling.  Granted, teachers are only contracted for ten months, this means five-sixths the amount of time as their peers.  Mathematically, this means entry-level master degree teachers, based on a 12 month contract would make about forty seven thousand dollars.  You have to be fully dedicated to teaching in order to even want to step-in to the profession.  Which brings up my next point.

            A proponent of a merit pay based system asked the question, “What incentives do teachers have to improve?”  The incentives and rewards teachers are attempting to achieve are not connected to financial rewards.  This does not say teachers are not interested in attaining pay raises.  In fact, most are very interested.  The incentives and rewards teachers are attempting to achieve are a slow and tedious process.  This slow and tedious process of developing students has a slow turnaround.  Constructing student knowledge and helping students promote their social awareness is time consuming and full of ups and downs.  Teachers gain strength in small incremental benchmarks, i.e. a week without a suspension, a few percentage points higher on a test, a smile, a story, laughter, those “aha moments”, connections, etc.  Teachers understand this takes time and they do it because they want their students to succeed. 

            Not all teachers are effective and there are certainly a few who are outright bad.  Not all teachers can be great.  Not all members of a basketball team or baseball team are great.  With that said, how can society expect teachers to be great.  The job is not valued in our society.  Yes, friends, family members, strangers tell me my job is noble.  But, I do not see grad students walking around the Seattle University campus with Curriculum and Instruction sweatshirts on.  I see Seattle U Law shirts.  Lawyers get paid more, too.  But, teaching is not about substantial pay increases or notoriety.  It is about preparing a child to be a meaningful member of society, perhaps, the most important investment.

            This blog discussed unions.  Lives were lost because men and women were treated unfairly and inhumanly.  Greed was ramped in the early 1900s.  Andrew Carnegie was worth over 23 million dollars.  Eighteen million Americans were living under the poverty line, there were only 29 million Americans living in the United States at the time.  Typical workdays were 12-13 hours and individuals worked 6 days a week.  In one tragic case, hundreds of women died in a factory fire.  Why?  Because the doors were locked, so they could not take breaks.  The building burned down.  Underground gangs, such as the Molly McGuires, killed supervisors and bosses because of unfair work and pay conditions.  Now, unions are to blame; it is said, they protect poor teachers.  I know teachers who teach in Catholic schools.  These teachers complain about teachers in their schools and no unions are present.  Increasing the baseline pay for teachers will likely increase the competition for teaching jobs. 

            I also mentioned incentive pay for teachers in Seattle Public Schools.  Teachers who receive at least two innovative marks and two proficient marks are eligible for a career ladder change.  Meaning, they can apply to be a coach, mentor or use their classroom as a lab site for developing teachers.  As mentioned earlier in the blog, only two teachers can be chosen for this position per school.  When I told a colleague about the two teacher rule, he immediately said, in all seriousness, “I better get going on that.”  The competition had already started.  In that moment, collaboration was out the door.  Students do not gain from this environment. 

            Students do gain from more qualified teachers.  Increasing the tuition at universities is not improving our chances of recruiting qualified teachers to teacher training programs.  Teachers with a master’s degree earn roughly 43 thousand dollars per year.   It will take over a decade to pay off their loans.  Teachers need strong curriculum.  But, teachers need to be a part of the selection process for these curricula, not school board officials.  Being a teacher and listening to the nonsense of anti-unions, charter schools, poor teachers, etc. misses the mark.  The way to improve education is not that simple, but here are a few areas we could improve in:

1. Higher salaries
2. Involve teachers in decision making processes
3. Give teachers more collaboration time
4. Make the school year longer
5. Make the school day longer
6. Train teachers with latest, researched pedagogical techniques
7. Train teachers in new curriculum
8. Develop meaningful curricula
9. Establish mentoring programs for developing teachers
10. Trust

Conclusion

These are the list of questions presented in the introduction.  I will answer these questions based on the research I have completed on the effectiveness of a merit pay salary system. 

·  Does merit-based pay improve education?

The studies vary.  Some studies say merit pay does improve test scores.  Other studies show, merit pay does not improve test scores.  However, merit pay does not improve education.  Education is described as teaching beyond reading, writing and arithmetic. 

·  Does it improve the quality of teaching by incentivizing hard work?

Most teachers would agree, according to a study on Teacher Attitudes about Compensation Reform, “Teachers prefer pay reforms that reward criteria over which they have more control, such as work location or subject area.  Teachers are far less supportive of pay reforms that link rewards to performance” (Goldhaber, D., DeArmond, M., & DeBurgomaster, S., 2010).  In short, teachers should be paid more in if they are working in hard to fill positions. 

·  Does it help attract and retain quality teachers and weed out bad teachers?

It certainly does not attract quality teachers.  Most teachers are not in favor of merit pay in connection to student performance (Goldhaber, D., DeArmond, M., & DeBurgomaster, S., 2010).   Performance pay adds stress, teaching is stressful enough; adding more stress will not increase the likelihood of retaining teachers. 

·  Does merit pay take the fun and passion out of teaching and over-focus it on measures?

 Speaking from my own experience (11 years of teaching), when all of your focus goes into test scores and improving student performance, the students are not as excited.  They are bored.  When the students are bored, teachers are frustrated. 

·  Does it create undesirable competition between teachers and undercut cooperation?

According to Kathy Boudreau (Drevitch, G., 2006), President of Massachusetts Teacher Association, says merit pay undercuts collaboration with teachers.  Now, of course, a union leader would denounce merit pay, in most situations.  However, it makes sense when you think about Toner’s interview (Toner, C., 2011) in respects to schools only having two incentivized positions.  Teachers will not collaborate.  Instead they will compete with one another.

·  Does it discourage teachers from going to needy schools?

It depends on the merit pay system.  If teachers are being paid strictly by student performance, then yes.  If teachers are paid more for going to hard to fill positions, it is likely to encourage teachers to go to these schools.  However, in a conversation I had with a teacher who works in a “hard to fill position”, she said she would have to be paid more than the commonly $2000-$3,500 per year. 

·  Can teacher merit be successfully measured?

Teacher effectiveness can be measured, to a certain extent.  However, it cannot be measured solely on student performance.  Strong principals must be able to identify strong teaching practices.  Principals have varying perspectives of good teaching, though.  This makes it difficult to analyze and pinpoint effective teaching because of subjectivity within the field. 

·  Does it fall prey to principal cronyism?

Principals can only afford to reward a certain number of teachers in a building (Toner, C., 2011).  In the end, the principal makes a subjective call on who gets these bonuses or incentive pay. 

·  Does it encourage teachers to cheat?

Historically, teachers have cheated (Boles K. C.,& Troen, V., 2006) to get the results they want.  In no doubt will teachers teach to the test.  The test scores may improve, but are the students actually learning new skills (outside of test taking)? 

·  Does the market demonstrate the importance of pay for performance?

Ghorpade’s (1999) article actually refutes the idea of using performance based incentives in the business world.  The market, or better phrased the public simply does not understand the consequences.  Teachers (Goldhaber, D., DeArmond, M., & DeBurgomaster, S., 2010) are not backing performance pay, if teachers are not backing it, it does not belong. 

·  What do past examples of merit pay around the world demonstrate?

Troen and Boles (2006) gave a good example of how merit pay failed in England centuries ago.  A study was done conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, where 534 studies were collected from schools tied to teacher pay-for-performance programs.  The findings: the students at schools with teacher pay-for-performance programs scored an average of one to two percentage points higher on standardized tests than their peers at schools where no bonuses were offered (American Association of School Administrators).  With teaching to the test and eliminating non-assessed curricular areas, gaining a few percentages does not seem worth the effort.  

·  Overall, is merit pay for teachers good education policy?

I think this quote summarizes, at least partially, some of the problems with connecting pay to performance:

“Still, there are problems with performance-based systems.  One is that it

can be difficult to connect measurable behaviors to quality teaching.  It is

relatively easy to count how many times a teacher asks a question requiring

critical thinking, for example, but not how many times a teacher says something

that inspires a student to work harder or to consider advanced study in a

discipline.  While a great deal is known about teaching and learning, a certain

amount of mystery and magic still remain.  By one estimate, only about 3% of a

teacher’s contribution to student achievement can be explained by skills that are

easy to measure.96  The remaining 97% is attributable to qualities such as

The Promises and Pitfalls of Alternative Teacher Compensation Approaches 

enthusiasm, which are not measurable and for which good proxies are not

available” (Harris, D.C., 2007).

Proponents for merit pay or performance pay are looking for measurable outcomes and teaching simply does not have many meaningful measurable outcomes.  Teaching is an art and art is hard to grade.  Now, when merit looks to increase pay for hard to fill positions, I get it and I fully support this sort of merit pay.  Beyond this, I cannot see much reason for establishing performance pay.  Not only do the cons outweigh the pros, the pros simply add too many cons into the mix.  For example, standardized test scores making slight improvement, yet history lessons and curriculum getting dropped. 

My Letter to You

            I am calling out to you to denounce the old, yet revisited, notion of merit pay.  Now, some merit pay systems help to incentivize teachers by paying them more to work in hard to fill teaching positions.  In this case, I am in full support.  The merit pay systems I am refuting are the ones that are connected to performance pay. 

            In recent years, unions have taken the brunt of protecting “bad” teachers.  I have certainly seen some of these teachers in action.  And, yes, they need to be removed.  But, they can be removed, with affective principals.  Affective principals have the ability to move teachers out.  It is a myth, perpetuated by conservative talk shows and the like to look for ways to attack unions.  Unions are not the problems.

            One solution is to raise the overall salaries for teachers.  You cannot recruit the finest with a yearly salary of forty-three thousand dollars.  Especially, when this amount accounts for a bachelor and a master’s degree, not to mention at least six years of schooling. 

            Another idea for improving our teaching force is to make sure educators are given adequate teaching materials.  Most important in these materials are curricula.  The students are need of meaningful curriculum, not “drill and kill”.  Our educational system still exists in an era of rote memorization.  It is not fair to entirely blame our teachers for our students failures when curriculum, that is mandated by school boards and superintendents, is inappropriate and lacking in meaning. 

            Finally, teachers need time to collaborate with one another.  Currently, teachers are given thirty minutes before and after school and one thirty-minute time slot during the day.  This does not allow for collaboration and reflection.  Collaboration and reflection allows teachers an opportunity to adjust their pedagogical approaches, collectively review student work, and debrief lessons and units.  Perhaps, even set up future lessons with other teachers and families.  With easy access to educators via email and telephones, many teachers use this time responding to families, colleagues and administrators.

            The idea of connecting teacher pay to student performance is downright scary.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I think educators can make a big difference in a child’s life.  Even with our current length in school day and year, assuming, they are supported by their principals.  But, applying teacher pay to a student’s ability to take a reading, writing and math test is wrong.  Make no mistake, with an incentive like money, there will not be many teachers who do not teach to the test.  Or, decide to pass on social studies and science in lieu of mastering predicates and synonyms. 

            In the new evaluation system, which is being rolled out by Seattle Public Schools, the district has moved away from the two tiered system of “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory”.  Now, teachers are aiming for innovative and proficient.  The bottom two rungs of the new evaluation system are basic and unsatisfactory.  As a teacher, I certainly like the idea of being referred to as innovative, rather than satisfactory.  In fact, I applaud the change.  The problem exists, and the principals and teachers will take the brunt, the subjectivity and distinguishing between proficient and innovative.  Another problem with this system is the district’s attempt to link incentive pay to the evaluation system.  If a teacher receives at least two innovative marks and two proficient marks, the educator is eligible for career ladder move, such as a mentor teacher.  The problem is only two teachers are allotted this position per school.  There goes any collaboration and teaming.  Teachers will be left to compete with each other.  If teachers are given the position, they make an extra $2000 to $3,500.  It’s safe to say, they’ll be fighting over the scraps. 

            Merit pay is not the answer.  Please think twice about the devastation that can occur under a pay-for-performance based system.  The benefits simply do not outweigh the costs.  Be an advocate for your local schools, do your research, avoid the Fox News ticker, read beyond the first couple paragraphs of the newspaper and be a support students by funding public education through sound ideas, well thought out and researched.

Sincerely,

Brad Bauer

Fourth and Fifth Grade Teacher

Annotated Bibliography

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000190 EndHTML:0000023055 StartFragment:0000002883 EndFragment:0000023019 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/brbauer/Documents/CUIN%20520%20annotated%20bib.doc

American Association of School Administrators. (n.d.) Hot Topic: Merit Pay. American

Association of School Administrators.  Retrieved from http://archives.aasa.org/content.cfm?mnitemnumber=&tnitemnumber=&itemnumber=8207

This article discusses the problems with performance pay and the many unknown variables involved.  It also talked about chronyism. 

Associated Press (September, 2010).  Study: Merit pay for teachers doesn’t improve

student test scores.  Fox News.com.  Retrieved from www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/21/study -merit-pay-teachers-doesnt-improve-student-test-scores

Although, this is a Fox News site and mainly conservative, it did denounce the idea of using performance pay for teacher evaluations; mainly because President Obama supports it. 

Banks, J.A., (2008). An Introduction to Multicultural Education, 4^th ed.  Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Multicultural education is important to the cause of supporting teachers in avoiding performance pay.  If not, the students just become another number or statistic, pass or no pass.

Boles, K.C. & Troen, V., (September, 2005).  How merit pay squelches teaching.  The

Boston Globe.  Retrieved from www.bostonglobe.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/09/28/how_merit_pay_squelches_teaching/

This article gave an excellent synopsis of what went wrong when England went to a performance pay system in 1710.  The article talked about how teachers specifically taught to the core subjects and dropped other subjects that were not tested.

DeArmond, M. DeBugomaster, S. & Goldharber, D  (2010).  Teacher Attitudes about

Compensation Reform.  National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 50, 1-44.

This article was a study of Washington state teachers.  The teachers in this article overwhelming did not back performance pay.  However, the teachers did support teachers receiving increase in their pay, when moving into hard to fill positions.

Drevitch, G., (January, 2006).  Merit pay: Good for teachers? Instructor-New Teacher

Magazine.  Retrieved from www2. Scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp

This article gave me several frequently asked questions.  I used these questions in my conclusion.

Economonu, E., (2010).  Goodbye-and good riddance-WASL; hello MSP.  Hearst

Communications Inc.  Retrieved from http:www.seattlepi.com/default/article/

The WASL is a standardized test.  This article gives background knowledge of the change from WASL to MSP.

E.J. Roos also claimed competition would increase in the schools with Seattle Public

School’s role out of the new evaluation system (personal communication, June 7, 2011)

This was a conversation with another fourth and fifth grade teacher about the problems with the Seattle Public Schools’ new evaluation system.

Fehr, E., & Fehr, M.C., (2010).  Teach Boldly! Letters to teachers about contemporary

issues in education.  New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Not all of the letters are beneficial.  However, many of the writers of these letters are teachers or were teachers.  They understand the process and the dilemma teachers face on a day to day basis. 

Freire, P., (2010).  Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach,

 expanded ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

The letters in this book express teacher empowerment.  These letters help support teachers who dare to teach.  Teachers needed support from a larger entity to do the powerful things they must do.

Ghorpada, J., (1999).  Merit pay:  why there are some flies in the ointment.  Union-

Tribune Publishing Co.  Retrieved from http://psy2.ucsd.edu/`eebbesen/psych18699/186Meritpay.html

This article takes the stance of avoiding performance pay.  Interestingly enough, the author is referencing the business and manufacturing world.  

Goldharber, D. & Theobald, R., (2010). Assessing the determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs.  National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education. Research, 55, 1-46. 

This article looked at the expenses connected with keeping seniority in schools.  It also surveyed teachers and families about Reduction in Force (RIF) for more qualified, young teachers.

Harris, D.C., (2007).  The promise and pitfalls of alternative teacher compensation

approaches.  The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice, 1-43.

This article addressed both sides of the coin in this controversial topic.  I used to help inform the reader.

Jason, G., (April, 2011).  Merit pay for teachers works and the evidence now proves it.

American Thinker.  Retrieved from www.americanthinker.com/2011/04…

This article gives the reader more information on high seniority is hurting our educational system.  Although, it does not use much data.

Labor, 1830s-Present. (n.d.). In U.S. History online.  Retrieved from www.u-s-

history.com/pages/h1678.htm

This website gives the historical background behind unions.  I used this information to support the need for unions, then and now. 

Lewis, B., (n.d.).  Pros and cons of merit pay for teachers. About.com.  Retrieved from

http://k6educators .about.com/od/assessmentandtesting/a/meritpay_2.htm

This article gives a comprehensive list of the pros and cons of merit pay.  The research from the articles helps address the pros and the cons.

Luebke, B. (March 22, 2011).  We need a better way to pay teachers.  Civitas Institute.

             Retrieved from www.nccivitas.org/2011/we-need-a-better-way-to-pay-teachers

This article is an attack on how teachers are currently paid.  The article addresses seniority as the main way of keeping teachers.

Turner, D., (April 8, 2010).  State push to pay teachers based on performance.  USA

Today.  Retrieved from www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-04-08-

teachers-pay_N.htm

This article addresses a state’s approach to changing the current way teachers are paid.  The article shows several of the loopholes in designing a performance pay system.

Value-added. (n.d.).  What is value-added.  Retrieved from

http://projects.latimes.com/value-added/faq#what_is_value_added

This site supported my work with an illustrated graph.  It explained how value-added works as a way of looking at a teacher’s increasing or decreasing of student scores. 

 Zuluaga, H., (2011).  State releases MSP & AYP Scores. Retrieved from

http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/101936623.html

The state releases all schools’ and districts’ data to the media.  Again, connecting performance to pay can be create a frenzy with the media.