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?