Could someone please explain this to me?
Obama is pushing for some reforms on education, including merit pay increases and weeding out bad teachers.
Why would the teachers’ union fight against rewarding teachers who excel?
The answer given to this question is:
[M]erit pay causes teachers to compete against each other, rather than collaborate, and is unfair to those who work in disadvantaged areas where it can be harder to boost student performance.
I am fairly confident that rewarding teachers who do well need not be competitive. If everyone reaches high marks, then why wouldn’t everyone get a merit increase?
The other question I would like answered is “Why would the teachers’ union fight to keep teachers who have no business teaching in their jobs?”.
I have been to public school. I had some BAD teachers who had absolutely no business teaching. It makes no sense for unions to prevent such teachers from being weeded out.
I am willing to accept that I could be missing an important part of this issue. So if I am, please feel free to correct me.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Teachers’ salaries need to be reformed across the board…but I don’t know if the merit system is really going to do much unless the STARTING salaries of teachers are raised, thereby attracting good people right off the bat. If they have a good living wage AND better working conditions, then that’s a much better way to go about reforming this flawed system.
The way this sounds, it looks like the only thing being implemented is the competition for better pay - no improved starting salaries, no improvement in working conditions that currently require teachers to be social workers, psychologists, and surrogate parents all in one, no overhauling of a system in which the hammers rarely fall on the administrators - and this kind of thinking is going to tick off the teachers’ unions.
Merit pay increases are exposing the tip of a huge iceberg made up of all that is wrong with public education in this country. Neither presidential candidate never really had a plan on how to work on this, and it is beginning to show.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
So you would agree that merit based incentives for pay would be fine to have if we also started teachers off at a higher initial salary?
If so, then I would definitely support that and I agree with your assessment.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“So you would agree that merit based incentives for pay would be fine to have if we also started teachers off at a higher initial salary?”
Oh, absolutely. Then it doesn’t seem as much like an added burden on an already laden pack mule that is today’s public/charter school teacher.
And I don’t buy that the benefits should be enough anymore. One of the things about the public schools switching over to charters here in New Orleans is that it was also expected that the boards of each charter school would work out what sort of benefits the teachers would have, further decentralizing the public school system and letting the state off the hook in terms of responsibility for public education. Thankfully, a three-year deadline for charters to do this was extended another couple of years, else many current charter teachers here would most likely have left.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Because of human nature? Because of things like this?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19159145
Merit pay is fine as a concept. It’s what we have in the private sector and for many (most?) people it’s a failure there, as well. One would think that in a private enterprise, the compensation would be commensurate with the value to the enterprise.
But, paradoxically, people who have negative value to the enterprise can be most highly compensated. People who put their own advancement head of the enterprise can climb the ladder to achieve ever higher compensation while driving out actual talent who move on to fairer environments. People who are collaborative and team enablers can have value unrecognized and even forced out.
If we are going to think about schools participating in a market and competing for students and teachers, we also have to be prepared to let some go bankrupt and also be prepared for standards to fall as the primary goals of competition are focused on by each party for their own self-interest.
You get what you pay for, and if you pay people to stab each other in the back, they will.
So, I would say, I am not against merit pay - but what you get will depend on how you define merit and who defines it.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Fair enough. I do agree that “merit” would have to be well defined.
To be fair, it would also have to take into account things that may be hard to gauge like parental involvement (or lack thereof) that can impact the achievement of the students in a classroom.
Backstabbing should definitely not be rewarded.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Back stabbing is our society way of competing. It is a fairy tale to think that everyone plays fair and will accept that they are not as meritorious as another. Merit pay (or I believe it should be - bonus) needs to take a back seat untill every child is taught in a physical environment that enhances education. Take that black girl from S Carolina who was at Pres Obama’s SOU. AS shown on TV, the school is in deplorable condition where the challenge to teach, and to learn, escalates as trains loudly roar by. The govenor of S Carolina should resign because of that sad state of affairs. Before merit pay should be the rebuilding of that school. The reward of doing so would clearly apply to both student and teacher as meritorious.
Merit pay also lacks clear definition. Is it meritorious to teach a test rather than the core knowledge a subject requires to master? If test results are the criteria, then that will be all that is taught. The definition of merit must be such that it enhances the students success in mastering a subject, is made so interesting that absence in school is deminished, and rewards the community with more qualified workers and citizens.
Clearly the govenor of SC would, by his malfesence toward the afore mentioned school, would deminish the merit worthiness of teachers in that school. But, just being a teacher in that school, and encouraging her student to write a persuasive letter to elected officials, in my mind would be meritorious and deserving of much extra pay.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am
The only problem I have with your argument is that providing a quality building where one can teach effectively should have nothing to do with the decision to reward teachers that cause their students to excel.
We can strive for a goal of building/repairing/etc schools in all school districts that allow for a quality education while also striving towards a goal that rewards teachers for not only their tenure of service, but the quality of service they bring to the table as well.
I just fear that if we don’t start paying the people who are supposed to teach our futures doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, etc a quality wage with incentives for achievement at the workplace, that more people will avoid the field of teaching for other areas that are more likely to provide such a wage.
And I would think that the union would get behind rewarding the very best of its teachers, and helping all teachers to strive to be the very best.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Just to clear up what I think should be done:
I think that all teachers should get annual salary increases that adjust for cost of living and tenure at the school. I also think that merit increases should be available on top of the other pay increases for those teachers who go above and beyond the call of duty. And if all teachers go above and beyond, then all teachers get the merit increase.