It seems so simple: the worker who does a superior job gets paid more than the worker who is less competent. It works for cabinet makers, auto mechanics, graphic designers, advertising executives, and a wide variety of other workers. Why not apply the "pay for performance" principle to teachers?
The problem is that far too many of the factors that determine student success are outside a teacher's control; the institutional structure of public schools can obstruct even the best efforts of the very best teachers.
A Market Model for Education
The law of demand works well for determining the value of many workers. The mechanic or contractor who gets the job done quickly and efficiently, the ad writer who increases sales, or the chef whose offerings draw critical acclaim can expect to earn more money. The teachers most in demand – by students, parents, and many school administrators – are those who offer the fewest home assignments and the most inflated grades. For teaching, market forces don't work.
Testing Children to Evaluate Teachers
Thanks to No Child Left Behind, education today is driven by testing. To many, it seems obvious that student test scores can be used to evaluate teachers, but that approach will not work:
- Tests are not administered annually, so multiple teachers will have contributed to a child's success or failure. Most subject areas are not tested at all.
- Increasing the number of tests so they may be used to evaluate teacher performance is sure to increase "teaching to the test" – a practice already criticized as educationally unsound.
- Especially in low income neighborhoods, absenteeism and transience have a high impact on student test results. Teachers cannot be held responsible for students who spend little time in class.
The Pitfalls of Merit Pay Evaluation
Standardized testing for merit pay does not work in the real world, so somebody has to determine which teachers earn merit pay and which do not. Most often, the evaluators will be school administrators.
- While most administrators like to think of themselves as "master teachers," the best teachers elect to stay in the classroom, where they can teach. Administration is a way to escape the classroom.
- Some administrators reward their favorites with "good" classes, which are easy to teach, while loading discipline problems into the classes of less favored (or less experienced) teachers. The deck is stacked before the school year begins.
- Nepotism and political pressures are rampant in school districts across the country, so administrative appointments may have nothing to do with skills or talent – and the same may be true of merit pay awards for teachers.
An Alternative to Merit Pay: "Challenge Pay"
It is hard to identify the best teachers, but easy to identify the children who are most difficult to teach. Schools keep records of absences and disciplinary infractions. They know which children learn readily, which ones struggle, and which no longer bother to try. Teachers willing to take on the greater challenges should be paid more than teachers who take the easier route.
Teachers in affluent suburbs, supported by educated parents with high expectations for their children, have far fewer obstacles to success than teachers who work in urban ghettos or rural areas where children's lives are scarred by poverty. Under the current system, though, teachers in affluent districts are better paid than those who teach the poor. Means must be found to reverse those circumstances, to encourage the best teachers to work where they are needed most.
Given complex problems, "obvious" solutions seldom are best. Merit pay for teachers is clear example of a simplistic and wrongheaded approach to education reform.
