Jay Greene on Merit Pay

Jay Greene wrote an article recently, cited by Joanne Jacobs and available from the Manhattan Institute's website. It's on a merit pay proposal in Arkansas; the reason that it's worth paying attention to for us here in Washington State is because of the work being done by the Washington Learns commission.

In the article Greene goes over some of the usual objections to merit pay proposals, this time after they were raised by the NEA to block action in Little Rock. We'll probably hear much the same up here, if it gets that far. Here are the objections that Greene discusses:

Merit pay rewards teachers with advantaged students and punishes teachers with disadvantaged students. He points out that a good value-added model would make this a moot point. We have that option at my school thanks to the NWEA testing, which shows where they started, where they finished, and how much growth they made in between. As a first grade teacher we do the DRA Reading Assessment from Pearson Learning, so I can see where they are in September, January, and May. When they grow it's great, and when they don't I have to think pretty critically about what I'm doing. I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

Merit pay just produces teaching to the test. This was a phrase that carried charge and venom a couple of years ago; I think it's been defanged almost completely. You can teach to the test AND do the units you love, if you think creatively. There are still expectations in science and social studies, and they're still getting music and PE--can anyone tell me, really, what's been lost?

Greene does go a bit off track, though:

In addition, to prevent manipulation of one measure of student achievement to obtain bonuses, multiple measures could be used. TAP does this by using peer assessments as well as test scores.

Multiple measures are OK, but isn't student performance the ultimate indicator? If you tie money to principal and peer evaluations, I think you're taking a big risk that could negatively effect the community as a whole. I'm curious to know how it's worked in other places.

Merit pay creates competition among teachers, undermining their ability to work effectively as a team.

I don't see why this would be. Your goal is your goal; why would it matter if someone else meets their goal or not? Further, if the districts established grade level goals (i.e., 80% of 1st grade students will read on level) on top of the individual goals, then there's a powerful incentive to help your neighbor so that everyone succeeds.

Merit pay hurts teachers of subjects other than math and reading. This is the one that I can't get around, because I don't know how to get bonuses into the hands of the specialists, and my fundamental sense of fairness demands that everyone have the chance. This could be rectified through school-wide programs, which makes sense if you have specialists who assist in the core areas. Greene argues that we could focus on key areas, but if he's at all concerned about union buy-in (and he should be), then the system needs to address the needs of all of its members.

Teachers aren't motivated by money. Certainly not. In fact, I personally burn my paycheck every month and piddle on the ashes to show my disdain for the oppressive capitalist pigs.

Seriously though, no one goes into this job for the money. We all know that the money isn't good. What I can't get past is the idea that we would spit in the face of a way to get MORE MONEY, even if it isn't everybody initially. I'd rather try a system that gets MORE MONEY into the hands of the teachers instead of saying that MORE MONEY is a bad thing. I'm a fan of MORE MONEY, because I'm also a fan of short-term investments and fine cinema.