At the
center
of a
national
debate
about
the
quality
of
public
education
is the
subject
of
teacher
compensation.
The
issue
among
many is
not
whether
to
increase
teacher
salaries,
but
rather
who
among
teachers
should
receive
an
increase
and how
they
should
earn
it.
Merit
pay is
presented
as a
daring
attempt
to
infuse
public
schools
with the
best
practices
from
business
and
industry.
Yet
enthusiasm
with the
concept
far
outpaces
the data
supporting
its
effectiveness.
A 1998
Harvard
Business
Review
article
substantiates
this
fact.
After
surveying
companies
that
experimented
with
merit
pay,
consulting
firm
William
M.
Mercer
concluded
that
most
individual
merit-based
pay
plans
share
two
attributes:
they
absorb
vast
amounts
of time
and
resources,
and they
make
everybody
unhappy.
W.
Edwards
Deming
and
management
experts
have
argued
strongly
against
using
such
schemes.
Practical
experience
from the
private
sector,
however,
has done
little
to stem
the
growing
fascination
with
offering
merit
pay to
school
employees.
In fact,
merit
pay has
been
touted
as a
panacea
for what
ails
public
schools
for
several
generations.
The
reason
it isn’t
already
in place
all
across
the
country
is that
it
doesn’t
work. It
does
nothing
to
improve
teaching
and
learning,
it makes
teachers
competitors
rather
than
collaborators,
and it
takes
the
focus
away
from
doing
what we
know
does
work —
paying
every
teacher
a living
wage
commensurate
with
their
training
and
experience.
For the
National
Education
Association,
the
questions
about
any
merit
pay plan
remain
the same
today as
they
were
decades
ago. Who
determines
merit:
Is it
the
superintendent
or
school
board?
Or is
merit
based on
the
results
of a
one-size-fits-all
standardized
test?
Similarly,
what
gets
tested:
physical
education
and
music?
Or only
“core
curriculum”
subjects?
When it
comes to
merit
pay, it
is clear
that
folks
have
decided
on a
solution
before
they
have
defined
the
problem.
The
result
is
misguided
policies
that
divert attention
from
addressing
the root
causes
of
teacher
turnover
and
stagnant
student
achievement.
The
question
isn’t
how to
differentiate
pay
between
teachers.
The
question
is how
to pay
teachers
a salary
that
encourages
the
creation
of great
public
schools
for
every
child.
That
means
paying
every
teacher
for more
training
and
experience.
It means
paying a
salary
that is
competitive
enough
to keep
teachers
from
being
tempted
to leave
the
classroom
for
other
jobs.
And it
means
paying
an entry
level
salary
that
encourages
people
to enter
the
teaching
profession.
That’s
why NEA
has
called
for a
national
beginning
salary
of
$40,000
for
every
public
school
educator.
In a
2006
MetLife
survey,
one in
four
teachers
cited
low
salaries
and a
lack of
control
over
their
own work
as the
primary
reasons
they
will
likely
leave
their
jobs
within
the next
five
years.
These
teachers
reported
frustration
and
dissatisfaction
with
principals
who did
not ask
for
their
suggestions,
did not
show
appreciation
for
their
work,
and did
not
treat
them
with
respect.
Merit
pay
can’t
substitute
for a
working
environment
that
places a
high
value on
trust
and
teamwork.
And
merit
pay
can’t
replace
a
perverse
pay
scale
where
the
average
earnings
of
workers
with at
least
four
years of
college
are now
more
than 50
percent
higher
than the
average
teacher’s
wages.
At
schools
that are
struggling
and
failing
to make
adequate
yearly
progress,
educators
are
crying
out for
smaller
class
sizes,
better
professional
development,
more
parental
involvement,
and
updated
textbooks
and
technology.
In this
environment,
merit
pay is
just an
over-simplified
approach
masquerading
as
school
improvement.
After
150
years of
working
to
improve
the pay
for
America’s
school
employees,
NEA
knows
there is
a better
model
for
attracting
and
retaining
qualified
teachers
and
improving
student
learning.
Pay
teachers
for the
knowledge
and
skills
they
gain.
Compensate
teachers
for
mentoring
newer
colleagues.
Reward
teachers
who stay
in
hard-to-staff
schools
and
accept
extra
assignments.
Provide
group
incentives
that
give
teachers
the
opportunity
to
obtain
greater
autonomy
and
discretion
in all
school
matters.
Sadly,
it is
often
simpler
to
tinker
with
merit
pay than
to
exercise
the
judgment
and
courage
necessary
to
reform
teacher
quality
at its
core.
Does an
ill-advised
strategy
of
pushing
merit
pay best
serve
the
children
of
America?
Absolutely
not.
--###--
Reg
Weaver
is
president
of the
National
Education
Association,
which
represents
3.2 million
teachers
and
other
public
school
educators.
