First off, there's no empirical evidence that teacher merit pay actually works.
"In the 1980s, school districts dabbled with programs that offered teachers cash inducements, such as bonuses or raises, for doing their jobs well.
But those merit-pay programs were mostly short-lived, hotly debated, and understudied. Even after all this time, no one knows definitively whether children learn more when teachers are paid extra for boosting their students' achievement."
Where the concept of teacher merit pay actually comes from is the rightwing think tanks and business community mouthpieces who have been saying for years that, "Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers?"
Well, just for a start, here are a number or reasons why:
* What is the standard of measurement?
Proponents of teacher merit pay usually point to standardized tests scores as the chief means of judging teacher performance. The logic goes that if the teacher has done his/her job, then the student will make a better test score. But what this rationalizes in essence is a teach-to-the-test mode of instruction that dumbs-down all educational practice to mind-numbing rote learning and a minimumalist curiculum.
A merit pay approach being tried in Denver goes beyond standardized test scores to include "a host of skills and achievements on the job.'" This approach has been spearheaded by another darling of the so-called "education reformers," Michael Bennet, who is also in the rumor mill for Obama's Secretary of Education. But to say that this approach "'is working or not working are shortsighted responses'" because "'reforms take a while to mature, especially in complex urban school districts.'"
* Teachers don't all do the same job.
While it may make some sense to determine a math teacher's performance by how well her/his students do on a math test, how would you determine an art teacher's performance?
* Most of the factors that affect student achievement are not within the teacher's control. According to research there are 11 factors that are the primary determinants of student achievement, in this descending order of importance:
Student-Level Factors
* Home environment
* Learned intelligence
* Background knowledge
* Motivation
Teacher-Level Factors
* Instructional strategies
* Classroom management
* Classroom curriculum design
School-Level Factors
* Guaranteed and viable curriculum
* Challenging goals and effective feedback
* Parent and community involvement
* Safe and orderly environment
* Collegiality and professionalism
For sure, teacher-level factors are important determiners of student achievement, but to assert that merit pay alone is going to be the best leverage point for higher achievement is totally unreasonable.
While rightwing and business leaders like to assert that pay for performance works for "everyone," the reality is that it doesn't. Not even for them.
My hope is that the widespread portrayal in the media of Obama's thought process on education reform is totally distorted by who exactly the media is listening to: the business community and rightwing think tanks. And that at some point a broader perspective that isn't adamant about gimmicks and quick fixes will be added to the debate. But so far is there any evidence of this? |
STATE BLOGS
