So how much should
a teacher get paid? That’s the question I asked myself when I set out to write
this blog post. And that answer, I found, requires a rather extensive answer.
So, this week, I’ll be looking at merit-based pay because it’s a widely popular
silver bullet program. Next week, I’ll look at salary schedules and what a
teacher should be worth.
Merit-based pay
has a lot of supporters. Entire states are trying their hand at merit-based
pay. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the accountability movement. It’s
promoted by such people as Bill Gates, who, in defense of merit-based pay, said
in the Washington Post, “The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.”
If that’s the case, merit-based pay could be an answer, some say. Others disagree. They fear that merit-based pay will promote favoritism, because there is not clear definition of what a good teacher is. So far, implementations have based this pay on standardized testing. This is a mistake, in my opinion. Those tests are neither an accurate portrayal of a teacher’s ability or an excellent (or even good) standard to base student learning on.
Some research also suggests merit-based pay doesn’t work, at least in the realm of standardized testing. Vanderbilt University’s George Peabody College of Education found that student scores did not rise if a teacher knew he or she could earn a bonus. Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives put it this way:
We sought a clean test of the basic proposition: If teachers know they will be rewarded for an increase in their students’ test scores, will the test scores go up? We found that the answer to that question is ‘no.’
As the Knowledge Center reports:
National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said the report’s findings were not surprising. ‘Extra money is not a silver bullet,’ he said. ‘It must be part of a comprehensive system that invests in things that make a difference in teaching and learning, such as experience, knowledge and skills. You have to start with a base of strong, competitive professional salaries and then reward teachers for professional growth and offer mentoring, support and solid feedback to help them improve their craft.’
I would add that there are no silver bullets in education, and we should be wary when someone says they have found a quick fix. Merit-based pay seems to fit that standard.
There are reports that show how merit-based pay does improve student test scores. But if we stick to our conclusion that there are no silver bullets, we know that it can’t be merit-based pay alone that improves those test scores – other factors are involved (perhaps the most talented teachers in a school where offered the merit-based pay, and the control group was made of mediocre teachers, etc.) Also, if we remember that standardized testing is a poor way to judge what students learn, then we can conclude that merit-based pay based on standardized testing is an unfair way to decide who gets bonuses.
If that’s the case, merit-based pay could be an answer, some say. Others disagree. They fear that merit-based pay will promote favoritism, because there is not clear definition of what a good teacher is. So far, implementations have based this pay on standardized testing. This is a mistake, in my opinion. Those tests are neither an accurate portrayal of a teacher’s ability or an excellent (or even good) standard to base student learning on.
Some research also suggests merit-based pay doesn’t work, at least in the realm of standardized testing. Vanderbilt University’s George Peabody College of Education found that student scores did not rise if a teacher knew he or she could earn a bonus. Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives put it this way:
We sought a clean test of the basic proposition: If teachers know they will be rewarded for an increase in their students’ test scores, will the test scores go up? We found that the answer to that question is ‘no.’
As the Knowledge Center reports:
National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said the report’s findings were not surprising. ‘Extra money is not a silver bullet,’ he said. ‘It must be part of a comprehensive system that invests in things that make a difference in teaching and learning, such as experience, knowledge and skills. You have to start with a base of strong, competitive professional salaries and then reward teachers for professional growth and offer mentoring, support and solid feedback to help them improve their craft.’
I would add that there are no silver bullets in education, and we should be wary when someone says they have found a quick fix. Merit-based pay seems to fit that standard.
There are reports that show how merit-based pay does improve student test scores. But if we stick to our conclusion that there are no silver bullets, we know that it can’t be merit-based pay alone that improves those test scores – other factors are involved (perhaps the most talented teachers in a school where offered the merit-based pay, and the control group was made of mediocre teachers, etc.) Also, if we remember that standardized testing is a poor way to judge what students learn, then we can conclude that merit-based pay based on standardized testing is an unfair way to decide who gets bonuses.
There are also ethical matters involved with merit-based pay. Take, for example, the scandal in Georgia last year where desperate educators helped their students cheat on standardized testing in order to get the best school ratings and highest pay. Georgia was caught. How many schools cheated that weren’t caught? Is this preventable if we make merit-based pay the system standard?
I also object to the merit-based pay because it’s based on a business model. We’ve
seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system
simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the
accountability movement?). Why would merit-based pay be any different? I have
doubts. Education is a for-profit business. Its practices are not tangible
methods you can use in every location and get the exact same results. If
education is not a business, why are we trying to run it as one?
What is a better
alternative than merit-based pay? Van Roekel touches on that. And what should a teacher get paid? We’ll pick up on those thoughts next week, and focus more on our end goal (looking at Linus Wright’s 10th point [Determine proper compensation and benefits for all public school employees as compared to similar positions in the private sector] in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.”)
No comments:
Post a Comment