A Case for Merit Pay

For too long we have hidden behind the fact that teaching is an art, not a science, and so have avoided making hard decisions about which teachers should get raises and how large they should be, Mr. Hoerr charges. IN HER January 1988 Kappan article, Deborah Meier makes a convincing case for looking at schools in very different ways.1 She notes that the odds can be changed - indeed, beaten - through the work of visionaries (one of whom she clearly is). But her main point is one that we cannot ignore: we cannot rely on charismatic leaders to make a difference; rather, old paradigms must be cast aside, and schools must be structured differently. After all, even though the number of public, private, and parochial principals is relatively small (all could sit simultaneously in the Rose Bowl), not all of them are exceptional personalities. Meier points out that "every school must have the power and responsibility to select and design its own particulars. "2 She argues that there are three common features of exemplary schools: smallness, self-governance, and choice. As one who has been a public school principal dealing with impoverished urban youth and who is now the headmaster of an independent school, I found myself nodding in agreement. In many ways, the three components she discusses are endemic to private schools. And they could be just as common in public schools, if the leaders of public school systems had the will to make them so. Indeed, much of the appeal of the charter school movement can be attributed to educators' and parents' efforts to create versions of these three factors in public school settings. But Meier leaves out another factor that I believe is also critical in beating the odds: a system of teacher evaluation and remuneration that focuses on teaching performance, not just teacher longevity. For too long we have hidden behind the fact that teaching is an art, not a science, and so have avoided making hard decisions about which teachers should get raises and how large they should be. When it comes to determining raises, treating all teachers in a school system as if they were identical by relying on a matrix of college degrees and length of service hurts the profession, the teachers, and the students. The Present Model: Everyone Loses The profession of teaching is harmed by the focus on college degrees and length of service because it enables the public to look on teachers as less than true professionals. Teachers are widely viewed as people who have job security and summers off. Anyone who works in a school knows that good teachers do not have their summers "off" in any sense. Inevitably, they are teaching or pursuing some sort of learning (or holding down another job). But the public perceives teacher tenure and a pay system that does not distinguish between quality and mediocrity as soft on evaluation. Most nonschool workers recognize that the size of their paychecks is determined, at least in part, by the quality of their performance. And voters are thus less likely to favor higher taxes for education when they know that everyone in the school system, good and bad, will receive the same raise. Teachers themselves lose under the present system because excellence is not rewarded. Oh sure, there are smiles, nice notes, added responsibilities, and, sometimes, public recognition for excellent teachers. But in most cases that's the extent of it. The star teacher with 13 years of experience and a master's degree probably gets the same raise as the mediocre teacher with 13 years of experience and a master's degree. Not only is this unfair to both teachers, but it is also hard for the star teacher to feel pride in his or her performance when someone down the hall is simply marking time until June (or until retirement) and receiving the same raise. All of us know that teachers and principals privately bemoan those who don't pull their weight; over time, watching such injustice saps everyone's enthusiasm and pride. …