by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent post Mel Riddile expressed his opposition to merit pay based on his experiences with the process. A comment posted on an earlier Riddile piece stated equally negative views.  Among the shared concerns were that the process did not identify the best teachers, too much pressure was placed on the evaluators, and inconsistency was rampant.  But the most significant issue was the belief that such a system implied that a financial reward was required to motivate teachers to put forth their best efforts. As someone who participated in this process I agree wholeheartedly with these points.

Anyone who has been a part of a teaching staff knows that the concept of a financial incentive being a proactive factor in intensifying a great teacher’s work ethic is laughable.  Great teachers when standing in front of their students never measure their efforts in dollars and cents.  To the contrary, great teachers are altruistic to a fault.  They will sacrifice sleep, family time, and whatever else is necessary to guarantee their students the best possible outcomes. 

Great teachers, however, are human beings and respond to positive reinforcement. Ask outstanding teachers about the most memorable moments in their careers and they will inevitably refer to letters or visits from former students who expressed gratitude for the impact the class had made in their lives.  These stories of interpersonal success are an inspiration that no financial incentive could supersede.

But while the public may misinterpret the motivation of merit pay, I do, however, strongly disagree that a program of merit pay cannot be successful. What is necessary is a system that gives recognition to outstanding teaching while incorporating financial incentives.  Such a plan would necessitate the blending of several concepts into a single entity.  This program would require an evaluation process that provided educators with a precise measurement of their work, a clear profile of each individual school and a reward system that would improve the learning environment at selected locations.

First Evaluate the Teachers

The best way to eliminate some of the fundamental flaws inherent in the typical merit pay plan would be to separate the evaluation from the money.  The process would begin by using a refined, precise evaluation method to assess the performance of each member of a school’s teaching staff.   Previously, there has been a lengthy discussion of the importance of creating a system of evaluation that will eliminate weak teachers and strengthen good ones.   (“Finding the Right Measuring Stick”)  The world of education is extremely quantitative.  All students routinely receive numerical assessments of their performance on virtually every piece of work they submit.  Seniors are ranked from best to worst based on their cumulative grade point average.  Careful analysis is given to graduation, dropout and absentee rates. Student bodies are described in terms of the percent of their ELL populations, free and reduced lunch recipients and ethnicity.  Schools are measured and ranked based on the number of students who pass or fail standardized tests. 

Ironically, the only part of the system not given a precise score is the work of the teaching staff.  To the contrary, the vast majority of teacher evaluations are neither quantitative nor descriptive.  For the most part they are a “pass/fail” exercise where teachers are deemed either adequate or unsatisfactory.  The best teachers in a district deserve better than a grade of satisfactory.  What is needed is a more detailed, precise evaluation that clearly delineates the performance level of every teacher both individually and in comparison to their colleagues.

One of the key components of the evaluation plan proposed in that earlier post was the use of full-time district evaluators who are responsible for 80% of the process.   Their presence would give these assessments consistency throughout the system rather than within an individual school.  While the original proposal established five basic groupings for performance it could be reconfigured to make it far more quantitative.  A numerical rubric, much like those used to grade essays, could be employed that would assign points in such categories as classroom management, clarity of instruction, standardized tests scores, and any other area that would contribute to the success or failure of an educator. The demographics of the school would be factored into these calculations.  Much like the scoring at an Olympic diving competition the test scores, management skills, etc. would be combined with a “level of difficulty” aspect in terms of the student body involved. 

 The overall evaluation would then be given in the form of a score between 0 and 100.  Such a system would give teachers a clear understanding of their perceived abilities.  A score of 85 in a school where the mean score is 77, the median is 75 and the range of scores is from 99 to 53 will clearly inform the person evaluated of their standing in the school and in the district. The overall competence of the staff could also being easily ascertained. Again, it is critical to emphasize that this would be a program utilizing professional, full-time, district-wide evaluators. 

The potential positive impact of this system on outstanding teachers could be immense.  For our best educators a pat on the back or a kind word cannot match the satisfaction of being ranked in the top 10% of a school or district by other professionals. This is recognition that would truly designate the merit of their work.

Then Reward the Schools           

In a recent post discussing high poverty schools “False Assumptions Lead to Misguided Policy: Part 1” Dr. Riddile wrote:

“We need to begin changing the mindset of educators regarding the need to work in less affluent schools. Talking alone won’t change the culture. Changing the culture means changing our behavior by creating incentives for teacher and principals to work in those schools including up-front financial incentives, a promise of small class sizes, upgraded facilities with the latest technology, and award and recognition programs that recognize teachers in less affluent schools.”

Building on Dr. Riddile’s thoughts, why not blend this idea with the concept of merit pay?  If a school’s faculty is among the top scorers in the district, factoring in all the variables about the various schools in the system, then the school is given a reward.  It could be in the form of extra staffing (lower class sizes), better resources, or improved technology in addition to the implicit recognition.  This system would not be designed to punish affluent schools.  As demonstrated in an earlier piece (Time to Turn Talk into Action) a relatively simple mathematical equation can be constructed that will acknowledge success at all types of schools. 

Recognition of “merit” whether in actual dollars or in the clear and concrete knowledge that their talents are both documented and appreciated is critical to the morale and self-confidence of our best educators.  By incorporating a quantitative, consistent evaluation with financial rewards for outstanding teachers, schools, such an outcome is possible.