In the name of accountability there is a lot of talk about "merit pay" for teachers.  "Merit pay" systems vary but the general idea is that a district would replace the traditional system of automatic pay raises based on a teacher's college education and number of years on the job.   A normal salary schedule is a grid with years on the left and units of study on the bottom and you move down in years and hopefully, across the grid as you accumulate units of study with the top earners being at the bottom right corner of the grid.

Under some “Merit Pay” systems, teachers would be assigned to one of four professional levels, ranging from competent to expert, and would receive pay raises based on their teaching ability, how often they miss work, and how well their students perform on district tests and other scholastic measures. They also could get a raise if a committee decides they deserve to move up to the next professional level.

Allow me to dissect each one of those factors:
“Teaching ability” - how do we measure their teaching ability?  Who is going to measure teaching ability and what makes them such an expert.  Believe me, you do not want to leave this in the hands of the principal, that is a recipe for disaster and low morale based on their judgements.  Some teachers on every campus feel that their principal plays favorites and now you want them to determine their teachers salaries?

“How often they miss work” - I am a huge fan of paying teachers based on this criteria.  Teachers are given roughly 8-10 sick days a year and, like more American workers, tend to use them all.  Some districts allow you to roll them over until next year or even use unused sick days toward early retirement.  In my 11 years of teaching I have accumulated over 100 sick days so I am well on my way to retiring at least a year early.

“How well their students perform on district tests” - Are we to assume that the students test scores are a direct result of the teachers ability.  Do you see the potential for abuse here?  Teachers can benefit from either:  1. Somehow figuring out a way for the students to score poorly at the beginning of the year thereby creating much more room for improvement or 2. Spending all year teaching directly to the test.  No time for field trips or creative teaching, I have a mortgage to pay!

Teachers can earn more money by working in unpopular schools or teaching unpopular subjects. I am all for teachers making a little more money if they are taking assignments that no other teachers want.  They also can earn more money by taking classes to improve their teaching, or by raising test scores.

Most of the teachers that I know are not really motivated by money.  You can give them a $10-20K raise and they would not be able to teach any better and those who do not give it their all would resent having others judge their performances.

"Merit pay" is not going to go away until there are some viable alternatives to it.  The problem as I see it is that if a district does install a merit pay system and test scores do go up it does not necessarily mean that it was due to the merit pay and not other factors.  Ultimately, we are not talking about increasing the pool of money we pay teachers with, we are talking about redistributing it differently so for every teacher that is making more money there is a teacher making less money.

 This is a tough one...

For more on this topic please visit:

 http://www.alec.org/2/1/talking-points/8.html

http://www.sanbenito.k12.tx.us/Hot%20News/042604...

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articl...

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/708.pdf