AndyKroll.com

That’s the question asked in an article in today’s Detroit Free Press. Let the age-old teacher merit pay commence.

After the jump, I break down the fors and againsts of the merit pay debate and put it into context of the Obama administration and Ed. Secretary Arne Duncan.

I also offer a few fresh new ideas regarding merit pay. (Think bowl games and Big Ten football.) Join the conversation—let me know what you think.

There are the familiar arguments in favor of merit pay. “The public supports paying teachers on the basis of performance,” Thomas Toch, co-director of Education Sector, an independent think tank, told the Free Press. “They believe that there are good teachers and bad teachers and they want to do anything that increases the number of good teachers.” Of course the public supports teachers who do their job well; who wouldn’t reward someone for doing their job well?

Yet, as merit pay critics rightly counter, what constitutes “good performance?” A teacher’s students performing well on standardized tests? Consistently positive reviews and feedback from principals or parents or even students? It’s hardly clear.

Rewarding teachers for boosting students’s test scores—a practice already used in Oscoda Area Schools in the northeastern Michigan and Au Gres-Sims School District on the north side of Saginaw Bay—raises concerns that teachers will teach to the test instead of teaching the curriculum, not to mention that standardized testing is a poor measuring stick for actual student learning.

Basing merit pay on teacher reviews and evaluations offers a bit more hope. However, teachers stuck with incompetent administrators or principals without teaching experience (yes, sadly, they exist) over their heads are disadvantaged. Grand Blanc Community Schools, just south of Flint, uses a mix of both. As the Free Press reported, “Value-added pay has been used for the last seven years [in GB Community Schools]. The pay is based on internal evaluations, adequate yearly progress and test scores. The amount depends on the district’s economic health, and can be as much as 1.5%.” This is an encouraging approach to merit pay.

The debate over merit pay has been renewed by the Obama administration, and, more specifically, Education Secretary, with whom I have serious reservations. Merit pay, and incentive-based learning, was a staple of Duncan’s reform as the CEO of the Chicago Public Schools. As Catalyst Chicago reported,

To encourage teamwork and innovation around raising student achievement, Duncan has also led Chicago in an experiment in performance pay for teachers. Now a few months into year No. 2 of a four-year pilot, the program will eventually span 40 schools—20 are participating now. Based on a national merit pay model, Chicago added the twist of extending bonus offers beyond faculty, bringing all school staffers—from custodians to cafeteria workers to office clerks—into the fold.

 

The first round of bonus checks were distributed last week.  Nearly $340,000 was awarded to 420 employees at nine schools where test score gains averaged 5 points.

 

Initially, Chicago Teachers Union officials were wary of merit pay, fearing that it would pit teachers against each other. But now union leaders support the project because it includes extra training for teachers, and they believe the teacher evaluations are objective.

It’s too early to tell whether Duncan’s merit pay reforms in Chicago have been beneficial, but the idea of including extra training for teachers in merit pay programs is an idea that should be considered anytime merit pay is discussed.

And there’s always the question of where the actual merit pay will come from. Michigan’s schools are already cash-strapped right now, meaning extra pay for successful teachers will have to come from the federal government.

Above all, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who felt that teachers shouldn’t be rewarded for success in the classroom. But there need to be fair, comprehensive, accurate and multi-layered assessments of a teacher’s performance.

Here’s an idea of my own: Why not implement a teacher merit pay program modeled on how the Big Ten Conference handles the football bowl game winnings of its collegiate teams?

When, say, the University of Michigan (my team!) goes to the Rose Bowl, the earnings U-M gets for appearing in the game are not given solely to U-M but rather are distributed throughout the conference. That way all eleven teams benefit from those one or two teams that make it to a bowl game.

Now from the gridiron to the classroom: Why not consider a merit pay plan that rewards individual success—be it individual teachers within a school or individual schools within the district—and distributes those rewards throughout a school or district?

If a handful of teachers in a single school perform extremely well, then perhaps the entire school could be rewarded, with every teacher receiving a small pay increase or bonus. That way teachers don’t feel as if they’re competing against each other, and, at the same time, they’re encouraged to improve their teaching to earn more money—for themselves and their colleagues.

Or the “Big Ten plan” could be implemented on a district-wide basis: Rewards that would be given to individual schools that perform well could be distributed across the district, in turn motivating other schools to boost their performances.

A possibility? Totally crazy? Impossible? This idea of mine is, after all, just an idea right now, but I’m curious to know what you think.