Merit Pay for Teachers in the USA: Advantages and Disadvantages Research Paper

Introduction

In almost all the business firms and work areas, workers are paid according to the quality of their work, and not based on how many years they have been doing the job. But teachers are traditionally paid uniformly based on their experience only. This traditional system has invited criticisms from many corners of the nation. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Commented: “as substitutes for performance-based standards, school systems now reward teachers on degrees and seniority.

Yet neither of those measures may correlate with student achievement” (Link Teacher Pay, Student Gains, 2005). As the authorities recognized this idea, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts put forward a master plan for school reform, which gave stress on merit pay for teachers. The concept of merit pay for teachers, i.e. “giving bonuses in response to how well students perform” (Daily Policy Digest, 2007) has become a topic of discourse, not only among the educational intelligentsia but also in the ordinary social exchanges. The federal government has given around $80 million to the schools and states since November 2006 to implement a merit pay system.

Main text

In the 2000 presidential elections, George W. Bush and Al Gore had a debate over the issue of ‘merit pay’ for teachers. While George Bush supported the new system and proposed “$400 million in new funds for merit pay to be given out to the states” (Merit pay remains a bone of contention among teachers, 2000). Al Gore dismissed merit pay and put forward his plan for the benefit of the teachers. Now, the history repeats with a slight change, when Barack Obama supports the program and Hilary Clinton supports only the school-wide incentive pay and not the extra pay for individual teachers.

Many studies have been conducted in various US universities to study the results of connecting teacher pay to student achievement. Many scholars criticized the effectiveness of the school-district and state-sponsored merit pay system that is seen in many States. They strongly opposed the merit system by saying that a teacher’s performance cannot be measured as in the case of a salesman or lawyer. Teaching is teamwork, and the resultant competition from the merit pay system will weaken the teamwork. But recent findings by two economic professors, Michael J. Podgursky and Matthew G. Springer, “found that student achievement mostly improved when teachers received financial incentives” (Performance-based Pay for Teachers? 2007). They examined the outcome of such systems and found that the results are positive.

Many teachers support the merit pay system by arguing that good teachers should be well compensated. They criticize the traditional pay system where a teacher who cannot do simple mathematical calculations is not only spared from getting fired, but also receives the same reward as the best teacher in the school. Though the system is only in its experimental stage, some good results are already received from different parts of the nation. “At Meadow cliff, a poor urban school in southwest Little Rock tests scores rose about 7 percentage points after instituting merit pay” (Daily Policy Digest, 2007). But many of the supporters of the merit pay system agree that it is a challenge to measure the quality of a teacher.

Teacher’s unions’ in the states strongly oppose merit pay. The largest national Teachers’ union, The National Education Association has taken a stand that considers any kind of pay system “based on evaluation of teachers’ performance, as “inappropriate” (Education, 2007).

One of the leaders of NEA called Romney’s plan as “inequitable, divisive, and ineffective” (Janofsky, 2005). The American Federation of Teachers acknowledges that “the traditional salary schedule does not reward additional skills and knowledge that benefit children” (Olsen, 2001), but their disagreement is that considering student performance on standardized tests to decide the extra payment for the teachers will be unscientific. Protest have aroused from many teachers; unions as in Texas and Florida. But in many states, the unions are recognizing the merits of this system, but they are still of the opinion that student achievement is the only factor for consideration that reduces the effectiveness of the program. But Thomas Hruz tells why unions oppose merit pay: “The threat that teachers’ unions see from a performance-based pay system is clear: it would make them less relevant” (Hruz, 2000).

Conclusion

It seems that the debates happening in the country over merit pay for teachers do not affect the policies taken to make the system into currency. While teachers’ union conventions vigorously declare war on merit pay, educational departments hurry to endorse contracts that pay additional money for teachers to attain good results from the students.

Reference

Daily Policy Digest. (2007). Merit pay for teachers begins to earn high grades. National center for policy analysis. Web.

Merit pay remains a bone of contention among teachers. (2000). Cw.com. Web.

Performance-based Pay for Teachers? (2007). Science Daily.

Education. (2007). Long Reviled, Merit pay gains among teachers. The New York Times. P.2. Web.

Olsen, Darcy Ann. (2001). Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay. CATO Institute. Web.

Link Teacher Pay, Student Gains. (2005). Ed. Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Janofsky, Michael. (2005). Teacher Merit Pay Tied to Education Gain. The New York Times.

Hruz, Thomas. (2000). Quality Control: merit Pay and Why the Teachers’ Unions Stand in the Way. Wisconsin Interest.