Opinion: Merit pay problems

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Nathan Kravetz, a professor emeritus of education at Lehman College, City University of New York and a former principal for the Los Angeles Unified School District, responds to an article in The Times. If you would like to respond to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed in our Blowback forum, here are our FAQs and submission policy.

The notion of merit pay for teachers in public schools, which The Times advocates, is not a new one. It has persisted since the time of Socrates, who died of it. We must look with serious concentration upon the ways in which we support and reward what is considered to be the work of good teachers.

We look for teachers whom students and parents love and support. So we may want to reward the charm, the charisma and the happy relations shown by some but not all teachers. Some teachers just are not charming and not fun.

We want to know which teachers get the best results with their students: Do students come to class regularly, instead of cutting, claiming false illness or succumbing to peer pressure to be elsewhere?

Real results can be found in students’ test scores. Do good results, at or above expectations, mean the teacher has done a proper professional job?

Frequent, periodic assessments ought to show what our learned economists call ‘value added.’ That is, from a previously established condition, what is the new condition? What has changed and what requirements have been met by the student? Is the student now at a higher level of achievement in the subject than before?

One ought to show that such value added is the result of a teacher’s skills, better use of materials, closer attention to students’ learning styles, and proper use of tests and other forms of assessment. Is it the case that students (and family conditions) are the cause of lack of achievement? But we shouldn’t be too quick to blame students and families in such cases before the facts are clear.

If the review, by principals, peers or outside experts, shows that a teacher is responsible for value-added achievement by students, then some recognition should be given. This could be more money (always a great inducement), special recognition (teacher of the month) or a big sign on the classroom door (‘terrific teacher’).

But we’d better not forget the problems when such teacher rewards are given. Parents will insist that the ‘merit’ teacher is the one they want for their child. Who wants their child in a class where the teacher’s merit is not recognized and rewarded? Does a school with a minimum of ‘merit’ teachers (or none) then become a school no one wants their child to attend? When one teacher gets rewarded, what’s to be done with or for those teachers without such reward? Hold special ‘remedial’ classes for teachers? Send them to teach elsewhere; they might do better in another environment, with different students? Fire them?

It is possible that merit awards will sow hostility, anxiety, suspicion of favoritism or other debilitating conditions among teachers in a school. Still, it is clear that some teachers are more effective in many aspects than others. Attention must be paid and action must be taken.

Principals are expected to see and recognize those teachers who do a better job for their students. It is the principal’s responsibility to diagnose, plan and carry out appropriate measures for bringing a teacher’s professional work up to a proper level. Here is the true key to ‘reforming’ schools and improving their effectiveness as to student achievement and general student condition.