Teachers want students to prove that they are ready to move to the next grade level in a quantifiable fashion, yet they are uncertain if they -- or test administrators -- really know how to measure student achievement, although most were confident that they could spot a student who was not able to function at grade level. The supposed solution of merit pay was perhaps the least controversial aspect of the study: 70% of respondents said that teachers who work in 'tough' neighborhoods in low-performing schools deserved what they called 'combat pay.' 63% said that teachers deserved extra pay for teaching difficult, hard to reach students. Yet only 38% supported the type of merit or performance-based pay now proposed as a solution to deficits in teaching ability by many politicians. Indeed, these two techniques seem contradictory -- rewarding teachers based upon student performance on tests could mean penalizing teachers who work hard but whose students begin a much lower academic baseline than other teachers. Teachers seemed cognizant of the fact that shaping the mind of a student is not like creating an item at a factory, a teacher cannot be assured of 'quality control,' no matter what the gifts of a teacher. This is one of the most illuminating sections of the report, given that merit-based pay is often cited as the ideal solution by both liberals and conservatives alike. When tests are imperfect, and conditions are imperfect, there is no way that performance-based pay, based on student test scores, can be fair. Furthermore, another interesting revelation of the report was how it could destroy professional collegiality and solidarity, discouraging teachers from sharing ideas with one another, and encouraging more senior teachers to pressure administrators to give more difficult students to less powerful instructors.

Some of the findings from Stand by me thus highlight problems rather than provide solutions. Parents, teachers, and administrators are at odds, and all have horror stories about teachers who do not teach, parents who are more interested in their children...

What does emerge, clearly on every page, is teachers' demand for respect as professional class. Teachers are open to alternative certification, but they stress that contrary to popular wisdom, not every person can simply waltz into a classroom and teach -- some teachers have a gift, some do not, and training is required to use that gift. When administrators attempt to shape their agenda in the classroom, teachers feel a noticeable loss of autonomy and the ability to create an individualized instruction plan.
Reading Stand by me itself is a frustrating experience. On one hand, the reader wishes to abandon all standardized tests, and let committed teachers simply do what they love to do -- teach -- and suit their methodology to the needs of the classroom, not a test. But without the prod of standardized tests, teachers who are less competent may lose the incentive to teach at all. Without a teacher having tenure, parents and administrators in some school districts could easily dismiss a teacher for a personality conflict with a child who has a politically powerful mother, and teacher pay could grow even more abysmal. This could result in qualified individuals leaving the profession. But tenure also results in complacency, as does powerful union bargaining. The most helpful recommendation of the report is regarding how to effectively reward teachers with merit-based pay -- do not give pay based upon having good students by chance in one's classroom. Give rewards based upon real improvements in relation to where students began, as well as where they end at the beginning of the year, and honor those teachers who take on additional challenges.

Reference

Stand by me: What teachers really think about unions, merit pay and other professional matters.

(2003). Public Agenda. Retrieved February 28, 2010 at http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/stand_by_me.pdf