Ripon Forum


Vol. 42, No. 3

View Print Edition

A Note From the Chairman Emeritus

Twenty five years ago this spring, the Reagan Education Department released “A Nation at Risk,” a landmark study that found that America’s educational system was failing our students and, in the process, putting our future in jeopardy.

The Changing Face of American Students

This year’s high school graduating class is not only the largest in U.S. history. It’s also the most diverse.

What are “World Class” Schools?

It’s a commonly asked question. but until we make education a higher national priority, it’s also a question that will go unanswered.

The American Classroom in 2028

According to the former Secretary of Education, the biggest change in schools in the next 20 years will not be driven by the role of technology, but rather by the role of parents.

Six Years After No Child Left Behind

Reauthorizing this law will take more than lofty rhetoric. It will also take concrete proposals to empower parents, support states and local communities, and improve classroom instruction.

The Unheeded Threat

By failing to provide our students with an adequate math and science education, we are also compromising our future security.

Is Merit Pay for Teachers Good? Yes.

Other industries regular give bonuses to high performing employees. Why don’t schools?

Is Merit Pay for Teachers Good? No.

The question isn’t how to differentiate pay between teachers. The question is hot to pay teachers a salary that encourages the creation of great public schools for every child.

Mortgaging Our Future

Perhaps it is time to restore our faith in the power of markets, not governments, in lending.

On Teaching War: The Future of Professional Military Education

In the future, the attribute most needed by military officers is the critical thinking skills that come from a graduate education program

Time to Rethink Ethanol

If ethanol has economic merit, no government support is necessary. If it doesn’t, then no amount of government support will change that fact.

The Ripon Profile of Jon M. Huntsman

Government should engage in partnerships with the private sector to fund strong research institutes to focus innovation and creativity around the big issues affecting us.

Is Merit Pay for Teachers Good? No.

No, it will turn educators into competitors and make them teach to the test.

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.

The question isn’t how to differentiate pay between teachers. The question is hot to pay teachers a salary that encourages the creation of great public schools for every child.

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.

… 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.

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.