Merit Pay Teacher Performance Measured

Merit Pay

Teacher Performance Measured by Merit Pay

Merit pay is defined as recompense based on performance and is most often referred to as an educational reform measure. It provides a monetary bonus to educators who have been considered to be effective by assessing them against measurable criteria. Merit pay is arguably the most controversial issue related to education today.

Merit pay is not a new concept. It has a long (and some would say failed) history and it has actually been around since the early twentieth century. According to one researcher (Guernsey, 1986) "during the 1920's merit pay plans gave way to the single salary system in an effort to end the salary discrepancies between elementary and secondary teachers." Interest in it is revived on a regular basis.

Proponents of merit pay believe wholeheartedly that it would lead to improved educational outcomes. In addition, they believe it appeals to the better teacher who wants their work to be appraised against national benchmarks. Those who oppose merit pay are equally vociferous - with the National Education Association the most vehement of all. The teacher's union feels these politically motivated reforms do nothing to improve education. Supporters on both sides of the issue can point to mountains of research to buttress their arguments.

The institution of a merit pay system in a district or building is fraught with complications that are not easily dismissed. The first of these is the fact that the system cannot reward teachers for students' high scores on state and national assessments as the single criterion. There can be no argument that children in urban districts historically score lower than their suburban counterparts. Nor can you reward simple improvement in scores because those who are already posting high scores to begin with have less 'wiggle room'. Too, merit pay tied to scores opens up the door to cheating on the part of the teacher -- a not unheard of phenomenon in educational circles.

Moreover, teacher evaluation is infinitely more complicated than simply judging them against their students' test scores. More importantly, the personnel administrator -- or, in some cases, principal -- must be able to competently gauge the quality of instruction delivered by the teacher -- and requires the administrator to have effective interpersonal and communication skills.

Finally as global competition is ever burgeoning and America's students fall further behind the call for meaningful and authentic educational reform will increase -- and communities will most likely incorporate merit pay as one means of improving scores. Therefore, let us consider how a personnel administrator would develop and implement a merit pay program in their district.

The structure of a merit pay program

When a personnel director of a school district is charged with establishing a merit pay program the first order of business will be to research ones that are currently in existence around the country in search of a quality model to replicate. According to one study merit pay "can be awarded on the basis of input criteria (teacher performance) or output criteria (student performance). Input criteria may include classroom management skills, preparation of lessons, knowledge of subject matter, instructional techniques, management of student, staff and public relations, professional ethics and professional growth" (Ellis, 1984).

Ellis continues by offering more examples of the ways in which merit pay may be integrated into the evaluative process including:

such factors as professional development, additional responsibilities, teaching at a high-priority location, contributions to the total school program, teaching subjects for which there is a teacher shortage, and even for outstanding teacher attendance. "Incentive pay" denotes such programs which reward teachers for helping the school district achieve certain goals or solve specific problems.

How a merit pay program should be designed

Another expert in the field (Cramer, 1983) offers that there are three simple considerations that should guide the development of a merit pay program. First, what will be the objectives of the program? Second, what evaluation criteria and methods will be utilized? Finally, how will the implemented program be perceived by all those with a vested interest in its success?

Objectives should reflect the needs and goals of the district. They may include improved student performance, improved instructional delivery, attendance and professional growth. Evaluation criteria should be developed collaboratively to ensure the buy-in of all stakeholders and the amount of the incentive should provide a real incentive for improvement. Too, evaluations should be conducted fairly and impartially by a personnel administrator who has been trained to utilize the evaluation tool.

In another publication, an article by Heneman (1996) provides further clarification for the development of an effective merit pay plan:

Merit pay practices shown to be related to improved merit pay plan effectiveness include clarifying the link between pay and performance for the employee by increasing the frequency of appraisals, establishing developmental action plans, and developing a formal merit pay policy with safeguards to ensure employees perception of fairness.

Heneman continues his discourse on the use of merit pay by human resource managers by stating that there is conflicting evidence of its use across the country. Some studies find that personnel administrators are turning to it less and less while others are increasingly relying on it to motivate workers. However, even if the number of organizations (besides public schools) that institute performance pay programs is declining it is still the most frequently used method of determining pay increases.

Finally, let us consider the findings of Gross (1993) who have identified some of the critical factors in proper design and implementation of variable pay for performance plans. The reader will quickly ascertain that they mirror that of other noted researchers in this section and include" 1) senior management support, 2) employee acceptance, 3) clear goal definition and unambiguous performance measures clearly linked to employee efforts, 4) a supportive organizational culture, 5) clear communications, and 6) strong education."

Clearly the attributes of an effective merit pay program are clear-cut which would make it simpler to ultimately develop and implement.

How a merit pay program should be administered

It is not usually the charge of a personnel administrator -- of a school or elsewhere -- to initiate the suggestion to incorporate a merit pay program into an organization. This decision is usually made by top level management and passed on to the personnel administrator to develop a plan to develop the program. The personnel administrator will eventually be responsible for implementing the program but the process may take up to a year or more.

The development of a merit pay program begins with the creation of a team of stakeholders who will construct the parameters that will be mutually acceptable. This first step is key to the future success of performance pay in a district. The personnel administrator should never expect total buy-in on behalf of all stakeholders -- that is simply unrealistic. But the majority of people who will be impacted must be informed and have been given the opportunity to present their opinions. People want to be heard and know that their voice counts.

Performance pay programs call for an extensive and well-documented series of evaluation procedures as well as a varied salary schedule. The administration of this type of program can often be considered by the personnel manager to be cumbersome at best. There are many fine points to a merit pay system that the administrator must be conscious of at all times. For instance, when working with the school board and union leadership to develop a budget the cost of the varied salary increments and merits must be calculated. Also, will the evaluative process by handled 'in-house' or hired out to independent and trained evaluators? What would the cost of this be? The personnel administrator must be careful not to develop a quota system for merit pay which says that only a certain number of teachers would be recognized instead of including all those who would qualify. Additionally, the personal administrator must ensure that the program adheres to state employment, tenure and collective bargaining statutes.

There is much debate surrounding the publishing of names of teachers who were awarded merit pay -- another nagging concern for the personnel administrator. To do so may lead to professional jealousy and ostracism which negatively impacts the program as a whole. Many personnel administrators have found it best to keep this information private. However, this goes contrary to the point of merit pay itself. We should be celebrating innovative teachers who have experienced success with students -- not hiding it or keeping it hush to quiet a crowd of teachers who were not recognized. The goal is not to reward mediocrity but to honor quality teaching.

Differentiated staffing -- an alternative to merit pay

Many districts have found the introduction of a conversation about merit pay to be too acrimonious. In the end the goal of merit pay is to improve teacher instruction and student learning -- and not necessarily to pay more to do so. One alternative that is being turned to more often is called differentiated staffing. This involves "changing the role of school personnel in such a way that the resulting organization is capable of adapting the program of a given school to meet the needs of the child" (Conte, 1972) (finally, someone remembers that schools are about students not teachers). If the "objective of any reform measure is to increase the potential of the learning environment and facilitate the learning process" then creative ideas that involve changing the configuration and responsibilities of staff members to target their strengths must also be considered -- and should probably be implemented before any conversation about offering teachers more pay to do their jobs.

Other alternatives to merit pay

Alternatives to a merit pay system as a means of stoking educational improvement are not easy to find. Tenure and years of teaching experience are the normal and expected measures used to determine a teacher's salary and it would not appear that this is going away anytime soon. However, there are a paltry few suggestions that will be offered forthwith.

Ten years ago all stakeholders in the Denver Public Schools debated merit pay and the need for reform. In the end a new system of pay was instituted that "stopped paying based on years of service and started recognizing a host of skills and achievements on the job" (Drevitch, 2006). Today's system includes annual raises as well as incentives of up to one thousand dollars for such things as teachers who are working with large numbers of ESL students or handicapped children. There is also a monetary incentive for teachers who enter fields that are difficult to fill such as physics and the higher level math courses. This program that bases at least a portion of a teacher's salary on performance is now being duplicated in a number of states including Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Arizona and North Carolina.

Another alternative that has been proffered in place of merit pay is a teacher incentive plan. "These are agreements between school systems and teachers (unions) which offer teachers an opportunity to bonus pay, contingent upon academic improvement by their students on standardized achievement tests" (Conte, 1972). This again places the responsibility for student achievement squarely on the teachers (which just makes sense!) and at first glance seems only to differ from merit pay in that it is not formally incorporated into a salary schedule. However, this is not entirely true.

In one instance a team of teachers competed against a private firm that had recently come into the schools to improve reading scores. In order for the firm to be paid they had agreed to double students' reading scores over the course of a single year. If they did not achieve this goal they would then forfeit their pay. The teachers were offered a nominal incentive if they were able to do the same thing. In the end, the teachers fulfilled the goal.