Teacher Merit Pay Systems No matter how smart the student is, the efforts and quality of the school they are in, and the efforts and quality of the teacher that is instructing them has a very large influence on how well they will produce in school. If these factors have such a large influence on children’s ability to perform on standardized and non-standardized tests, both teachers and schools should be properly devoted to the children. This is where the idea of merit pay systems comes in. Merit pay systems reward the teachers with salary raises and reward schools with increased funds when their students do well or significantly improve. This process is made to encourage teachers to bring out the best in their students, and when they are properly influenced, it would seem that good results would be produced. The problem with merit pay systems in today’s schools, is that no one has found a “one size fits all” model for a merit pay system. Some systems have had success in some regions, while similar systems have failed in other regions. Merit systems have not worked in the past as well as they should have, this research paper will identify the failed programs, the problems behind those failed programs, the correct way to execute a merit pay system, and what the intended results can be if merit pay systems work to perfection.
One of the first merit pay systems came about when British educators realized they needed to change the education system to yield better results. In his article “Book Reviews” by Peter Downes, he quoted the educators as wanting “to see far more emphasis placed not just on doing the work but on the quality of the work that is done”. Downes cites research to show that schools and teachers do make a difference to a pupil's performance and seeks to convince us that in order to improve standards nationally, we need to start paying teachers well. Focus is needed especially on those who ensure that children learn particularly effectively, and changing the culture so that standards are raised substantially. His main point is that the higher the standards of teachers, the higher quality of learning will be implemented, and more success will be had by students. He also argues that the best way to increase standards for teachers is through merit pay systems. Merit systems can work, but only because there have been multiple failed attempts in the past that have helped mold the correct model for success.
Some recent implementations of the merit pay programs have failed even though they had been thoroughly researched beforehand. The primary reasons for failing with these programs usually deal with the teacher’s unwillingness to participate. A lot of teachers have reacted negatively to merit pay systems because they deem them as an unwanted change. Obviously, future programs need to do a better job of helping the teachers understand the benefits for them and the students. In the article "Some Efforts on Merit Pay Scaled Back; But other states and districts moving forward with plans,” Nora Fleming discusses about how some schools cut their merit pay programs because of ineffectiveness. The schools that are dropping funds for the program are citing reasons such as lack of results and non-sufficient funds. Even though the “Pay-for-Performance” system was built correctly based on previous research, it ultimately failed to produce the needed results in the amount of time it had to be tested. So far, research has shown limited impact and has led them to scale back, abandon, or change their merit-pay programs, causing others to wonder what the future will hold for compensation systems that link teacher pay to student achievement. Other schools however, are beginning to fund programs for merit pay because of an increase in federal funds pushing the programs. Although some districts are scaling back their efforts on the merit pay system, continued research is still being made to search for the right methods to make the project successful. There are still ways to execute the programs that have not been attempted and can yield great results.
Teachers actually pose one of the biggest problems when it comes to implementing merit pay systems. A lot of teachers already have their own opinions about “Pay-for-Performance” systems that can easily affect their teaching ability and their willingness to comply with such a program. The biggest weakness with teachers is how they are treated and evaluated in a merit pay system. Kay Livingston’s and Jim McCall’s “Evaluation: Judgmental or Developmental?” shows the international comparison of the results that different education systems achieve. The European Commission has published indicators and benchmarks relating to the quality of school education. This type of external evaluation is often perceived by teachers as judgmental and controlling. When teachers feel threatened, their work will undoubtedly suffer. Teachers often like to be creative and teach with their own particular style and any external control can affect them negatively. The teachers of course are not at fault here, but the system can still cause them to slip in their teaching abilities. The teachers are at fault when they either refuse to teach in a merit pay system based on preconceived notions, or intentionally sabotage the results to move back toward the normal salary system. The teachers might do this because they are scared for their jobs or salaries, but the system of merit pay is designed for teachers to be rewarded only with raises to their base salaries, never penalties to their base salaries. This makes it truly a non-risk program that can yield great rewards for both teachers and students. This aspect of the “Pay-for-Performance” system is one that is often misconstrued and can easily lead to the systems failure.
In “Risk Aversion and Support for Merit Pay” written by Carl Nadler, he examines whether the structure of merit pay affects the types of teachers who support it. . The article shows a model of the relative utility teachers receive from merit pay versus the current fixed schedule of raises. It predicts that teachers with higher base salaries would be more likely to support a merit pay program that allows them to keep their current base salary and risk only future salary increases. It seems to be simple; teachers who are paid more in base salary are more open to try programs like merit pay systems, because they feel more secure. Consistent with the model’s predictions, the article finds that district’s with higher base salaries and a higher proportion of teachers with master’s degrees are more likely to approve merit pay. In contrast, teachers with lower base pay are less likely to support merit pay systems, and can end up being the root cause of a system failing. The teachers in a merit pay system are the lifeblood of the operation, and without their full cooperation, the project is doomed to fail from the beginning. In an interview with Leanette Spencer, the media Specialist of Ferguson Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia, she too alluded to questions behind the execution of the merit pay system. She said that she could see the possible benefits, but also that she would never run the risk of implementing such a system until it had consistent success in other school districts. There are still plenty of questions about the effectiveness of Pay-for-Performance programs, coupled with a variety of criticisms about the benefits of merit pay are addressed in the article "The Delicate Task Of Developing An Attractive Merit Pay Plan For Teachers." written by Gary W. Ritter and Nathan C. Jensen. These questions and criticisms about merit pay programs have resulted in teachers viewing this type of incentive structure with much skepticism. More problems with the merit pay system arise when the system attempts to judge the teachers abilities as a teacher to help his/her students. There are many questions that pertain as to how it should be done, should it be based of the overall grades of the students? Or should it be based on the average improvement of each student? What about students that are already successful, how should they be judged? How are teachers supposed to help students if the school cannot afford decent materials, such as updated textbooks (Ritter and Jenson)? There are many problems with merit pay systems implemented in the past, and the ones that have failed cannot answer all those questions.
Another big problem is the standardized tests students must take to reflect their academic abilities. Just like how no one has come up with the perfect format for a merit pay system, no one has come up with the perfect standardized test. A student being judged on how they perform on these tests is not good if the tests are not a fair view of the student’s intelligence and abilities. Standardized tests simply cannot interpret a student’s growth and intelligence properly. Sarcastically portrayed in Eric Schwardron’s cartoon is a teacher showing up for a job interview and asking “Will this job be mainly true-and-false, multiple-choice, or essay questions?” This is a funny but true representation of standardized tests not being real world applicable for students, so why bother using them? This cartoon also portrays that teacher evaluations will become generalized and non-specific just like student evaluations when it comes to the merit pay system. It puts a joking tone on the fact that it will be tough to come up with a universal way to judge teacher and student performance in this system. As long as merit pay evaluations continue to be general and non-specific, the system will continue to fail.
With all the problems however, comes multiple solutions and continued research upon how to answer questions and execute a “Pay-for-Performance” system correctly. In contrast to external evaluations, internal school-based evaluations aim to be seen as a developmental process contributing to improve teacher and student learning, where ownership of the evaluation processes remains within the school. In “Evaluation: Judgmental or Developmental?” by Kay Livingston and Jim McCall, they examine the possible tensions and conflicts that may arise between these two types of evaluations. The work explores ways in which school’s internal self-evaluation processes may use the data in different ways to meet some of the external demands placed on them. Teachers are also much more open to critique from their own school districts that are familiar with their particular school, rather than following general orders from a state or national perspective. Also, teachers with masters degrees or higher base salaries are more secure in their jobs, and such are more likely to approve and support merit pay. So, a possible solution would be to either seek to employ more highly educated teachers or to raise the base salaries of teachers within this system. Teachers who are supportive of the program will yield the best results, so everything that can be done to increase their approval of the system is necessary. The ultimate goal is to improve student’s grades and test taking skills, and this is a way to help teachers get more on board to help that become plausible.
In James Caillier’s article "Paying Teachers According To Student Achievement: Questions Regarding Pay-For-Performance Models In Public Education," he outlines a formidable execution plan that is an obvious solution to the mistakes made by merit pay systems in the past. While other people continue to talk about the ultimate goals of merit pay, Cailler seeks to execute his plan to attain those goals. Caillier demonstrates in his article that Pay-for-Performance models were proposed as a way to find out how much students learned in schools and classrooms throughout the school year. What has obviously garnered much controversy regarding the Pay-for-Performance model is the attempt to link pay and tenure to performance. In his article, a framework is introduced that examines the likely success of using Pay-for-Performance assessments. His framework is incorporated in his merit pay model, referred to as “The Conditions that influence the success of pay-for-performance systems.” His diagram depicts 3 bubbles all being pointed to one large bubble with the words “Success of Pay-for-Performance System” written in it. The 3 smaller bubbles say “The People Producing the Output,” “The Kind of Output,” and “The Organizational Setting in Which the Output is Produced.” This diagram shows that you need quality teachers producing the output, you need those quality teachers to produce the correct type of output (as in, teach the students correctly), and you need a quality structural environment in which the teachers can work. All these factors add up to the “Success of Pay-for-Performance” system. Another model for success outlined in John W. Ritter and Nathan C. Jenson’s article presents five key lessons based on work with three Arkansas charter schools of how to best implement a merit pay program to avoid criticisms and common failures within the merit pay system. Basically, the five key lessons are that school administrators should generate staff support, they should create a bonus structure that is motivating to teachers, adopt assessments to help teachers track student performance, encourage collaboration, and define merit more broadly than improvements in student test scores. These five lessons are all great incentives for teachers tied to the merit pay program and it will encourage efficient effort with cooperation. These also end up helping answering questions generated by the cartoon “Teacher Evaluations vs Student Evaluations” by Eric Schawdron. The better the evaluation of students process is, the easier it is on the teachers and the better results will come from the merit system. The more teachers know about what they are dealing with in terms of student ability, the more they can do to help their students.
In Evan Sojourner’s article "When Does Teacher Incentive Pay Raise Student Achievement? Evidence From Minnesota's Q-Comp Program,” it shows that to prevent free riding by some teachers, this system may make individual or small team incentives preferable. The article is able to investigate whether incentives offered to the individual teacher are more or less productive than those offered at the school or district level as well. Sojourner’s findings suggest that if districts design plans locally, many will design plans that base rewards largely on informed evaluations. Finally, a solution to the failed merit pay systems of the past would be to reframe the teacher’s accountability in order to benefit not only the students, but also themselves. The basic principles that the article “Reframing Accountability as a Strategy to Save Public Education” by George Thomas covers are that it “focuses on engagement rather than compliance” and it “fosters trust rather than blame.” It declares many principles like those that it claims will only improve a Pay-for-Performance system. This article really focuses on the positive encouragement for students and faculty that need to go hand in hand with a merit pay system to help it function correctly. The positive reinforcement portrayed in his article can do nothing but secure the success of a merit pay system. Intertwining all these proven methods researched by various experts can help make the merit pay system reach its eventual goal of improving not only the life and abilities of students, but of teachers and school districts as well.
Merit pay systems have been attempted many times since their first modern implementation, but still have yet to yield consistent results. The problems have been identified like never before, and the solutions to those problems are ready to be implemented. Students, teachers and school districts are all set up to benefit from the proper execution of a merit pay system. With all the solutions provided by experts on this system, students are that much closer to doing better in school, teachers can be set up to reward their good teaching abilities, and schools will be better funded based on the success of these systems. While still not perfect, more and more kinks are getting worked out every day as new systems are being executed all around the country. The “Pay-for-Performance” system is no longer a good plan in theory, but it is ready to be a good plan in execution.
Work Cited
Caillier, James. "Paying Teachers According To Student Achievement: Questions Regarding Pay-For-Performance Models In Public Education." Clearing House 83.2 (2010): 58-61. Professional Development Collection. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.
Caillier, James. “The Conditions that influence the success of pay-for-performance systems.” Diagram. The Clearing House, 83.2 (2010): 61. 7 Mar. 2013.
Downes, Peter. "Book Reviews." Cambridge Journal Of Education 23.2 (1993): 226. Professional Development Collection. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.
Fleming, Nora. "Some Efforts on Merit Pay Scaled Back; But other states and districts moving forward with plans." Education Week 21 Sept. 2011: 1. Educators Reference Complete. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.
Livingston, Kay and McCall, Jim. “Evaluation: Judgmental or Developmental?” European Journal of Education. 28.2 (2005): 166-170. Web, 7 Mar. 2013.
Nadler, Carl. “Risk Aversion and Support for Merit Pay” Association for Education Finance and Policy. (2011): 75-78. Web, 10 Mar. 2013.
Ngoma, Sylvester. "Improving Teacher Effectiveness: An Examination Of A Pay For Performance Plan For Boosting Student Academic Achievement In Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools." Online Submission (2011): ERIC. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
Ritter, Gary W., and Nathan C. Jensen. "The Delicate Task Of Developing An Attractive Merit Pay Plan For Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan 91.8 (2010): 32-37. ERIC. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
Schwadron, Eric. “Teacher Evaluations vs Student Evaluations.” Cartoon. Pdkintl.org May 2011. 9 Mar. 2013.
Sojourner, Evan. "When Does Teacher Incentive Pay Raise Student Achievement? Evidence From Minnesota's Q-Comp Program." Society For Research On Educational Effectiveness (2011): ERIC. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.
Spencer, Leanette. Personal Interview. 9 Mar. 2013.
Thompson, George. “Reframing Accountability as a Strategy to Save Public Education.” Professional Association of Georgia Educators. (2012): 27-29. Web, 10 Mar. 2013.