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