Merit Pay at the Elementary Level

Having taught school for 15 years before I went into the business world for the next 30 years, I’ve watched with great interest the debates over the best ways to improve the education of young people.

One suggestion that has been around for years that is again being discussed is the “carrot” of better pay for teachers with the “stick” of accountability – merit pay. Why would many if not most teachers oppose this? Well, the bad teachers will because their careers might be shortened. Good teachers often oppose it as well – why? Quite frankly, they don’t feel comfortable with administrators making these evaluations. Teachers feel they would be too subjective – by definition lacking in reality and substance.

When I taught I was fortunate to do so under some good administrators. They had well-organized schools, well-disciplined schools, wherever possible they stood behind their teachers, they waded through the mountains of paper work which is the fate of administrators, they often attempted to motivate their teachers to focus on doing their very best for students each day, provided at least one good thoughtful seminar a year, etc. They were paid 2 to 3 times what their teachers were paid and many became administrators because they felt suited to that role and/or were attracted to the money, and we teachers thought more power to them. All of them had been teachers before, but several I knew were not particularly outstanding teachers, which was OK because many outstanding teachers would make poor administrators. That was my experience and is the experience of many teachers.

To have these administrators making judgments on my teaching effectiveness would have made me uncomfortable – especially if it impacted my pay check. Administrators clearly can and should make judgments on whether a teacher loves kids and deals with them fairly, can control the classroom, are prepared day-to-day, teach “students” not “material”, inspire and expect excellent work, are knowledgeable and avid learners themselves, and like their job. These should be part of an evaluation; but, as important as these things are, they don’t necessarily lead to students making acceptable progress in learning the core skills. There is a way to measure this. It requires a very involved testing and curriculum process that many schools do not have in place.

Students should be tested on core skills and knowledge at the beginning of and the end of each year up through the 8th grade. Beyond the 8th grade, because of variety of educational tracts students take, it would require another evaluation process that I would like to address at a different time. The data from these beginning of the school year tests should show competency level collectively for all students and individually for each student. This allows teachers to know which students will need remedial work to hopefully “catch up” and there needs to be curriculum available to help accomplish this. Then, the teacher needs to know what skills and concepts students should achieve during the year to stay on track for their grade level. A curriculum guide and/or course of study needs to be available that will accomplish this. If a district has good teachers, this guide should be loosely constructed so that teachers have some latitude to use their own creativity to accomplish these standards.

At the end of the year, a post test will be given to students with competency measured collectively and for each individual student. Those that score at appropriate level advance to next grade. Those who do not, must attend summer school or repeat the grade level. Each of these underperforming students should be evaluated to determine if they have learning disabilities, bad home environment, emotional/psychological issues, etc., that need to be addressed.

If the above process is not in place, teachers shouldn’t and can’t be held accountable. But more importantly, if they are in place, tests become meaningful for each student and trigger proactive responses from the educational system on behalf of each student.

The above process focuses on students achieving measurable, “minimum” standards, which is essential. But, there are excellent students and/or students with exceptionally deep seated interests that the standard curriculum does not address. These students should be identified. It then becomes a challenge of a teacher’s creativity, with the help of programs such as student learning centers, to arouse and encourage these students to achieve well beyond the minimum standards and to pursue their special interests.

In the final analysis, I think most school boards, administrators, and teachers choose not to run the risk of implementing merit pay because of the “fire-storm” it is likely to cause within a school district. If a school district like McPherson, can perform well (towards the top in the state and nation) in standardized assessment testing, ITBS, and ACT, which they do, why create an environment that could be so contentious that it could have a negative impact on education of our young people? However, if a process like the above does provide a clearer picture of teachers effectiveness and students progress, maybe it should be implemented without “muddying the waters” with merit pay in order to improve instruction of our young people.