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.