First, the basics. There are many different types of merit pay proposals out there, but the issue is not "Should we have a merit pay system for teachers?" but rather "What kind of merit pay system for teachers should we have?"
Most merit pay systems propose to give teachers a bonus if they improve student achievement in their class. This is on top of a teacher's salary. No teacher will lose money if their students do not do well on the test (although that is a thought....).
The argument gets fuzzy, and is purposely mischaracterized by many, when it comes to deciding how to measure student achievement. Do we A) measure how many students a teacher moves into the "proficient" (or "advanced") category in one year (no matter where the students start the year) or do we B) measure how much teachers grow students (no matter where students end the year)?
Teacher unions are very afraid of A (and rightly so--a teacher could be doing a phenomenal job growing students, but because they came to her many grade levels below, she is not recognized) and don't want to think about the implications of B (because it begins with the premise that lack of achievement can be directly linked to substandard instruction). In order to illustrate the issue, let's look at three somewhat oversimplified examples.
Example one is a gifted and talented class. Mr. B's students begin the school year at the proficient or advanced levels and "grow" one grade level during the year, but no more. Should Mr. B get a bonus (merit pay)? No, he has only done the minimum required of a competent teacher.
Example two is a class in a relatively low performing school. Most of Ms. F's students begin the year two or three grade levels below where they should be according to state tests. Ms. F ends the year with most students growing two or more grade levels, yet many may still technically be below proficiency. Should Ms. F get a bonus (merit pay)? Yes, Ms. F has accelerated the growth of her students, growing them more than required.
Example three is an average class in an average school. Ms. Z's students come to her mostly testing that the proficient and advanced levels on the state test. Unfortunately, after a year in Ms. Z's classroom most students have lost ground, scoring significantly lower than the year before. Although they may still be proficient (for example, moving from a high proficient to a very low proficient), they have lost knowledge and skills that the next teacher will have to reteach. Should Ms. Z get a bonus (merit pay)? Absolutely not! In fact, she may want to reconsider teaching as a career.
Most people would agree that a teacher should be able to "grow" students one grade level per year on average. That seems a basic indicator of competence for a teacher. Data clearly shows that "low-impact" teachers (i.e. teachers whose students grow less than one year) can actually make students stupider over time. Remember, we are not talking about where the students start, just that they grow one grade level in one year. However, given that so many students in this country are behind, we also need to find and reward teachers who are able to do more--who are able to grow students two and three grade levels in one year.
The best solution to the merit pay debate would be a system that rewarded a bit of both. It's no good growing students unless they eventually reach proficiently, but teachers should not be able to coast on their high achieving students. And, believe it or not, there are three states already using a value-added assessment (VAA) to determine "high-impact" teachers and schools (although the merit pay issue is still as toxic in these states as it is everywhere else): Tennessee (the first system developed by the granddaddy of VAA, Dr. William Sanders), Ohio, and Pennsylvania, with more on the way. This seems like a solution to the problem, you say. Well, yes, it is. Is it perfect? Is anything? Would it move us in the right direction? Certainly.
So what's the problem, you ask? Teacher unions. Rather than joining the fight to develop a system that works for students and helps administrators build schools that educate all students, they quibble. Here are some sample arguments, some with merit, some without:
- The tests are of poor quality and/or biased;
- So much more than simple student achievement goes into determining proficiency;
- If I work in an under-performing school, then my students will never grow or reach proficiency, and I will never get a bonus; and
- In secondary school it is impossible to tell exactly which teachers produce the gain or are responsible for the loss.
Each of these arguments has a response that will be addressed in subsequent blogs, but if we as a nation believe that teachers make a difference (and the truth is they make a difference both ways--for better and for worse), then we owe it to children to continue to perfect a value-added assessment system that supports a merit pay system for teachers. Certainly more work needs to be done to improve the quality of the tests, the reliability of the value-added system, and instruction in general, but the focus needs to move from whether we should have merit pay for teachers to how to make it work.
For more background information see the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Progressive Policy Institute.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment