There is an imperative underway by political leaders to further quantify and justify teacher compensation via a system known as meritorious pay (merit pay) based primarily upon student test score outcomes and data. While this may sound impressive and logical to the average citizen it actually is a practice borrowed from industry that has very little transferability to education. We need to be very careful about what may become the latest “trend” in education as defined by the objectives of politicians and the federal “Race to the Top” competitive federal funding grants for public education.
The first point that deserves attention is the misguided thought that somehow teachers are holding back on the very best educational practices they deliver due to their desire to earn more money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having worked with teachers for four decades in public education I can attest firsthand to the dedication and excellence that each teacher brings to work every day. The overwhelming majority of teachers in our country give 200% or more so their children can benefit from excellent instruction.
Next it should be noted that except at the very earliest stages of a child’s education our students are exposed to more than one teacher at a time. In fact, by senior year in high school our children may have been exposed to multiple teachers for multiple years. Last time I counted all of the teachers who had contact with my son or daughter over their school years the number was in the seventies per child.
So which one made the critical difference during let’s say the course of a year? Who deserves the merit pay increase or bonus? Was it the English teacher, science teacher, social studies, math, drama, art, music, technology, gym, computer, foreign language, business or vocational teacher? At what precise time did the magical “aha!” moment take hold? How much merit pay should we associate with this cognitive advancement and when did it occur?
Third we should consider that more than a decade of research indicates merit pay systems are not effective or reliable predictors of student outcomes. Two studies in particular from Vanderbilt University and from Nashville, Tennessee, concluded that there was very little if any correlation between meritorious bonuses and the achievement of students. The Nashville studies concluded that $15,000 bonuses to middle school mathematics teachers made no difference in overall student achievement levels.
Finally, until we have in place valid and reliable methods for the evaluation of teachers that are multidimensional and longitudinal in scope, that rely on the professionalism and long-term contribution of teachers to the profession, and do not depend on classroom observation as sole sources of ratings for teachers we should not leap into the maelstrom of merit pay. Let us explore this further as it deserves our full attention.
The more important goals for the evaluation of teachers are developmental in scope. Valid and reliable teacher evaluation models provide a formative and summative feedback loop, develop excellence in the specialization of each teacher, and account for the individual differences in the areas of expertise for each segment of teaching and learning. Most evaluation systems fail to recognize the value of teaching professionals in the fine or performing arts, movement education, vocational education, or other specialized elective subjects. Professional development should remain the overall priority for teacher evaluation along with the legally defensible mechanisms for hiring, retaining, and perhaps remediating low performing or dismissing ineffective teachers.
To suggest that the current systems are in place for scientifically diagnosing the merits of teaching and assigning bonus pay based upon standardized test scores representing only a snapshot of teacher performance in science, math, social studies or English diminishes the profession as a whole. What’s needed is a motion picture of both teacher performance and student outcomes that encourage excellence in educational attainment across the broad spectrum of subject matter taught in public schools across America. I agree that reform in the area of student outcomes is needed but will argue that merit pay holds little hope for fixing the complexities that need to be undertaken in our schools.
