Introduction
Education is an integral concept in society, in that it is something that a vast majority of us experience in our lives. Education is also fundamental in providing people with the skills and knowledge they require to actively participate in society. Therefore, there is considerable pressure placed upon education, and teachers to empower the next generation with the skills required to further our society. This pressure leads to constant reviews and new ideas about how to better our education system. Springer and Gardner (2010) state that one recent phenomenon that has been gaining a significant amount of media attention is performance pay for teachers. Performance pay is based on the concept that teachers should be paid based on
…show more content…
merit, rather than the current band scheme. This essay will explore what performance pay is, its history, positive and negative implications, and if it is viable or not. Brief History Springer and Gardner (2010), state that although policy makers and the media have started to pay more attention to performance pay, the concept itself is not necessarily new. Initial discussion around performance pay can be dated as far back as 1867 (Springer & Gardner, 2010). However, the discussion remained theoretical, and in the 1920s a new payment scheme was introduced. Springer and Gardner (2010), state that in “1921 Denver, Colo, and Moines, Iowa successfully negotiated and introduced the position-automatic or single day salary schedule for teachers”. Springer and Gardner (2010), state that in this system, teachers would be paid based on the degree they hold and their years of experience. This payment scheme was introduced to reflect a change in society for equalisation between women and men, in regards to salary (Springer & Gardner, 2010). The scheme did address the gender bias issues that were prevalent at this time, however it created other equalisation issues between good and bad teachers. The new equality in payment resulted in good and bad teachers receiving the same pay, which seemingly made it “harder to recruit and retain talented teachers, meaning students end up with inferior instructors” (Toch, 2009). These concepts are where the debate of performance pay originated. This debate will continue to rage as our societies needs become more demanding and the emphasis placed on education intensifies. What is Performance pay Springer & Gardner (2010), define performance pay as a scheme that offers financial reward to teachers and schools based on measurable student achievements. These outcomes can include student performance, increased student attendance, graduation rates, dropout rates and portfolio completion (Springer & Gardner, 2010). Performance pay is gathering momentum, because it is seen as a mechanism to improve the current educational outcomes of students, save money, reward quality teachers and accommodate a changing attitude in the teaching workforce (Springer & Gardner, 2010). This is in comparison to the present teacher payment scheme, which sees teachers paid based on a 1-9 level payment tier (Department of Education and Childhood services, 2014) (DECS). As an example, teachers first year out of university can expect to be classed in the tier 1 bracket, which translates to an annual income of $63,231(DECS, 2014). The scheme works on your position held and the amount of years you’ve spent teaching, therefore teachers will move up tiers based on experience not results. Both of these payment schemes have positives and negatives associated with them, which need to be explored before any reform can be recommended and or implemented. Positives of Performance pay Lavy (2007) states that performance pay has the ability to improve the current educational system by clarifying teaching goals and attracting and retaining the highest quality teachers.
The ability to acquire and retain the best quality teachers has been hampered by the current tier payment scheme (Lavy, 2007). Although the tier payment scheme has been in place for a considerable amount of time it is not exempt of flaws. One issue that is apparent with this model is that it doesn’t differentiate between good and poor teachers, meaning that even the poorest teacher is paid the same as the best in their respective tier. Springer and Gardner (2010), state that there are two issues with this philosophy, one being that by failing to differentiate between quality teachers, we are to a degree failing to value student achievement. Which, Springer and Gardner (2010), support by stating that payment based on years of experience and level of education has only shown a week correlation with student achievement. In contrast studies have shown a direct link between performance pay and a higher level of student achievements (Toch, 2009). The second issue is that paying teachers based on experience rather than results doesn’t allow for quality teachers to be acknowledged and rewarded (Lavy, 2007). Toch (2009), states that this makes it harder to recruit quality educators, which subsequently can leave students with an inferior instructor. The importance of a quality educator is exemplified in a recent study conducted by Hanushek and Rivkin (2004), where it is concluded that “if a student encounters an above-average teacher for five years in a row, that could overcome the achievement gap typically found between students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches and those from higher-income
backgrounds”. Lavy (2007) makes it apparent that performance pay can improve student outcomes by motivating teachers with a financial incentive. Lavy (2007), highlights that if teachers have the possibility of financial reward they may be more willing to apply themselves with a greater emphasis. “For example, a teacher might fail to assign homework even though she knows its value for her students because correcting and grading assignments involves more work for herself (Lavy, 2007)”. It is then hypothosised that with the performance pay scheme the teacher may be more inclined to do the extra work because of the allure of personal financial gain. However, if the teacher still fails to assign the necessary work he or she will be judged and paid accordingly. This then promotes an education system where quality teachers can thrive and student outcomes will benefit greatly. Negatives of performance pay Lavy (2007), in conjunction with Toch (2009), state that there are numerous reasons why performance pay has remained theoretical over the years. Lavy (2007), and Toch (2009), highlight: the teaching unions, complexity of teaching, cost, and teachers being non-financially motivated are some of the major reasons why performance pay hasn’t worked in the past. At its foundation teaching is an extremely diverse and complex industry, which makes it considerably hard to measure and evaluate. Lavy (2007), states that there are two main issues with performance pay in regards to measurement strategies. Lavy (2007), states that performance pay assumes that collectively a set of goals can be agreed upon, and also that progress towards these goals can be accurately measured. However, Lavy (2007), states it is difficult to agree upon a set of goals across all forms of education. This is due to the disparities between the public and private sector. Lavy (2007), states that private sector operates in a consumer-based industry, whereas the public sector does not. Therefore, the private sector relies on its ability to provide quality education that consumer’s value in order to acquire their students, whereas public schools are assigned students based on the geographic location. This in turn increases the difficulty of agreeing on one set of goals, because it may be biased towards one sector. The other issue that Lavy (2007), raises is that it is difficult to measure student’s progress fairly and accurately. This is particularly difficult when much of the evaluation process encompasses “proxies, such as self reported effort and motivation” (Lavy, 2007). It is also difficult to measure student progress, because teaching is an industry based on collaboration. Therefore, how can one teacher’s impact on a student’s progress be distinguished from another teacher, principal, school culture or family influence? One of the leading arguments for performance pay is that the financial reward will motivate teachers to apply themselves to a greater degree. However, Toch (2009), states when asked, teachers inferred that working in a positive environment where teacher development was encouraged outweighed a higher salary. This is exemplified in a study conducted in 2007 by two nonprofits agencies, Public Agenda and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, “found that, if given a choice between two otherwise identical schools, 76 percent of secondary teachers and 81 percent of elementary teachers would rather work in a school where administrators supported teachers strongly than at a school that paid significantly higher salaries” (Toch, 2009). Lavy (2007), contributes to this argument by implying that monetary rewards could have a detrimental effect on teacher loyalty and increase resentment towards management, thus reducing productivity levels. It can be then assumed that monetary incentive may not be a motivator and in fact could be detrimental to the schools culture. Toch (2009), in conjunction with Koppic (2010), state that the biggest barrier for performance pay is the teaching unions. Over the years there have been several attempts to implement performance pay schemes into the education system, however the teaching unions have always thwarted these attempts based on a rage of legal and career independence issues. Toch (2009), states that the unions took a particular stance, because performance pay violated the collectivism at the heart of the industrial-style unionism in public education. Lavy (2007), also states that the unions highlighted direct concerns from teachers about performance pay being unfair in terms of evaluation and its ability to remove teachers autonomy. Lavy (2007), indicates that performance pay also has the tenancies to invite unintended and undesired consequences, such as teachers’ catering their teaching philosophies purely to receive financial rewards. This could be represented where teachers focus on the tangible outcomes, whilst ignoring the intangible, immeasurable outcomes. Lavy (2007), states that such efforts could begin to restrict a schools curriculum to only the measurable subjects. This in turn could see a greater emphasis placed upon standardised testing, which subsequently devalues intangible areas such as creative thinking. Performance pay has also been linked with an increase in teachers engaging in deviant behavior, such as cheating (Lavy, 2007). This is particularly apparent in teachers who have below average students in terms of academic ability. This highlights that performance pay directly impacts not only the school in relation to curriculum, but also the students’ ability to acquire a diverse quality education. Despite all the negative implications of performance pay, Lavy (2007) still states that this scheme can still be implemented with relative success if done correctly. Lavy (2007), indicates that in order for performance pay to be a success the scheme needs to be carefully designed. The design needs to have attainable goals and the incentives should be balanced between individual rewards and school incentives. This will promote a positive culture within the school and reduce the likelihood of resentment towards management. Conclusion Springer & Gardner (2010), define performance pay as a scheme that offers financial reward to teachers and schools based on measurable student achievements. Performance pay is seen as an alternative to the current tier scheme, which pays based on the degree held and years of experience in the field. Done right, performance pay may contribute to a more professional culture in public school teaching. But it is unlikely that it can transform the teaching profession itself. There are entirely to many obstacles and fluctuating factors that can’t be measured or overcome, for performance pay to be implemented as the main payment scheme in education. However, there is evidence to support that performance pay can increase student outcomes. On this basis alone it is a recommendation that more studies be conducted to clarify if performance pay can in fact increase positive student outcomes.
In 2010, Charlotte Danielson wrote an article, “Evaluations That Help Teachers”, for the magazine The Effective Educator. The purpose of this article was to explain how a teacher evaluation system, such as her own Framework for Teaching, should and can actually foster teacher learning rather than just measure teacher competence, which is what most other teacher evaluation systems do. This topic is especially critical to decision-making school leaders. Many of the popular teacher evaluation systems fail to help schools link teacher performance with meaningful opportunities for the teachers to reflect on and learn from in order to grow professionally. With the increased attention on the need for more rigorous student standards, this then is an enormous opportunity missed. Students can only achieve such rigorous expectations if their teachers can effectively teach them, and research has shown that teachers who are evaluated by systems that hold them to accountability and provide them for continuous support and growth will actually teach more effectively.
The first reason I agree with Matthew Miller’s “A Deal for Teachers”, is that something needs to be done about good teachers not being treated or paid right. I know many (in my opinion) great and intelligent teachers. They are working hard all the time to teach children everything they need to know. Meanwhile, they are getting paid the same as their coworkers who are doing nothing. In poor schools this might be even more important. In some cases, school might be the only place some children are getting taught important life skills, and their teachers might be the only good examples they have. I know a teacher who works in a poorer school. She’s told me about how hard it is to work at a poor school in general, with a lot of children who don’t respect teachers or adults and parents that also don’t respect the teachers. Couple that with low income and awful coworkers. If we keep giving our good teachers reason to leave by not treating them fairly, then we will never fix the problem of having so many bad teachers in our
With the low expectations of teachers, students are limited in their ability to learn. As discussed before, it is difficult to predict how well a teacher will do at their job before they begin working. This creates doubt when hiring anyone, and employers may not know if who they are hiring is the right choice. If teachers are judged by not only the basic requirements met, but also their interpersonal skills and how well they are able to teach in a positive manner, there will hopefully be less mediocre teachers hired. In the same way, both an advanced teacher and an average teacher are paid the same wages, which creates a flaw in education. Even more, there should not be average teachers in the workforce if all teachers are paid the same. Though this harms the advanced teachers, who deserve more than they earn, it also harms the students, as they are taught at a lower level by the inadequate teachers. Gladwell mentions these flaws in his article, but he also explains the traits good teachers should have, which brings a strive forward in this issue. Because of this, it is clear America must be more selective and strict when hiring
Salary schedules for public school teachers are almost a common feature in public school districts. These schedules largely determine the salaries for the teachers. A single district schedule sets the pay for hundreds of thousands of teachers in thousands of schools (Besharov 1). The key factor that influences the pay for the teachers in the salary schedules include experience in terms of years and the total number of graduate course works that a teacher has completed. This paper will look at the cons and pros of the salary schedules in terms of an economic point of view.
It is a well-known fact that students entering higher education increasingly lack the academic skills necessary to succeed in their collegiate endeavors. It goes without saying that this is largely due to the widespread substandard education provided by legions of mediocre teachers—teachers who deliver shoddy instruction due to their own innately inferior academic abilities. At least, these facts are what Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy Gary Gutting would have readers of The Chronicle of Higher Education believe in his article “Why College Is Not a Commodity.” Although he makes many points that, if true, would be damning of the elementary and secondary teaching professions, Gutting stops short of proving his arguments logically or empirically. He claims today’s budding K-12 teachers often come from the bottom of the heap academically, directly leading to poor teaching—yet he provides no research to back up this connection. Furthermore, Gutting attempts to provide a solution to this so-called travesty by recommending that teaching be “professionalized,” ignoring the already-present professional practices and standards present. Gutting’s critiques, though thought-provoking, ultimately are logically and statistically unsatisfying in both their explanations of the state of teacher qualifications and in their calls to action.
Her title, “ The Next Frontier of Education Reform” brings in readers expecting some new dramatic shift to the American education system. Something that will halt past pretences, and shove us into a new generation, where America can once again claim a top spot on the world education ranking. But these bold statements are only met with the simple idea of throwing teachers into a pure capitalist like mosh pit, where only the best emerge. She entirely focuses on the introduction of IMPACT and LEAP programs, which seek to score teachers and replace those who don’t match standards of each specific
The most important reason public schools provide an excellent education is that teachers are required to be highly qualified and suited for the job. When asked if public schools were a wise investment for the government Barnard answered,” Yes, not every parent [very few in fact] are trained and suited to educate students”” (Barnard). In particular, they must acquire and maintain a license to teach. In order to earn this teaching certification, they must demonstrate proficiency in all basic skills, study their subject area in depth, and learn effective techniques of instructing all kinds of learners. They also are required to get on-the-job training under the guidance of an experienced teacher. They have to motivate students to learn and have a passion for teaching, maintain their license, and continue their own education and training throu...
Some locations in the United States are trying to improve their education by adding quality teachers. A major reason why there is an achievement gap in education is because there exist a gap in teachers as well. Research has shown that teacher quality counts. Some states are seeking ways to keep quality teachers and ways to attract them. In New York City, the schools will not hire teachers that are not certified. Also, New York and California are adding some sort of incentive in public schools, to attract quality teaching to minority schools. Sometimes school add annual bonus up to $10,000 for qualify teacher to work in public school, with low achieving schools. Also, many state provide some sort of tuition assistance for teacher, but of all of the states only seven target the candidates to commit to the lower achieving schools (Olsen, 2003).
It is no secret that college students pay absurd amounts of money in order to attend college and receive a college education. Thus, it would only make sense for students to receive this education from top professors who are experts in their field of study. In fact, in order to become a college professor, one must have the proper credentials to be considered for the position. Additionally, college professors receive their salaries which are based, among other considerations such as which school they work at, upon these credentials and average at about $68,000 per year. Finally, according to Christopher L. Brown and Stephen M. Kosovich, professors’ ratings greatly impact the enrollment in their courses (497). This means that in order to receive positive teaching reviews, they must do their part as a favorable professor. On the other hand, high school teachers are not held to this type of standard. High school students do not have to pay nearly as much as college students in order to attend their high schools. In fact, most high school students attend public high schools, which are free to attend. Although high school teachers are certified to teach, they are not necessarily experts in their field of study, like college professors are. Thus, they are not paid as much and their salaries average at around $55,000—$13,000 less than that of the average college professor. For these reasons, college professors are held to a higher standard than high school teachers, and therefore teach their students more effectively.
Although some people may argue that performance pay is good, performance/merit pay is bad because it will result in teachers doing much less personalizing of the curriculum, and spending that time doing only what things need to be taught in order to keep their student’s test scores up (so they will get paid more). One of the major cons of performance pay is that teachers would have less time personalising the curriculum, teaching the students what they need to be taught, and teaching other important but non-standardized subjects; then using that time teaching only the things they are required to teach to keep student test scores up so they will get paid more(What Do We Know about Teacher Pay-for-Performance?). This in turn will cause the students to have a harder time learning because instead of the teachers teaching what the students need to be taught and more time teaching what the people who don’t know what the students know think the students should be taught.
Strauss, Valerie. "Why teachers’ salaries should be doubled now." The Washington Post. N.p., 25 Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. .
Peske, Heather G., and Kati Haycock. "Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality: A Report and Recommendations by the Education Trust." Education Trust. N.p., June 2006. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
So even if teachers do their best, some of their students cannot get good grades (Solmon et al., 21-22). Yes, it is true. There will always be a small number of students who are hard to handle. However, merit pay is a salary paid based on employee performance, for a teacher, which is means based on their students’ score. In other words, the teacher whose students get better grades, are the people who can earn a higher salary. So what is the definition of better? If we compare all of the teachers in a country or in a state and choose who is better, this would not be fair. Nevertheless, if we just compare the teachers who are in the same schools and teaching students who are at the same level, this would be more equitable because they are teaching students who have similar abilities. Every class has good students and bad students, we can contradistinguish the average mark of a class for same exams like SAT or AP. Schools can give higher payments to the best teacher at every level. Merit pay is impartial as long as we use it in right
The state’s new evaluation system was in response to administrators who produced, “superficial and capricious teacher evaluation systems that often don't even directly address the quality of instruction, much less measure students' learning” (Toch, 2008). Too often, the “good-ol-boy” attitude would insure mediocre educators would remain employed. Realizing this was often more the rule then the exception, the governor created educational mandates to focus, “on supporting and training effective teachers to drive student achievement” (Marzano Center, 2013). Initially, they expected the school districts and the teachers would have issues and experience growing pains, but in the end the goal was, “to improve teacher performance, year by year, with a corresponding rise in student achievement” (Marzano Center, 2013).
A teacher take a hand, opens a mind, Touches a heart (Anonymous). High School and college teachers deserve higher pay than most opposing jobs. Some people may think if you begin to raise the hourly pay then the quality of teachers may go down. Teachers are actively working at school and at home. That is worth more than a 34,000$ annual pay (Alan).