Merit-Based Pay
Merit-Based Pay and the Teaching Profession
Marissa L. Mullen
California State University, Northridge
1
Merit-Based Pay
Merit-Based Pay and the Teaching Profession
Merit pay is a system of salary adjustment based upon teaching effectiveness,
yielding compensation for high-level teacher performance. Compensation can come in
many different forms, including bonuses, a different salary schedule, incentive pay,
effective teachers advancing more quickly up the current salary schedule, or rewards for
“extra” duties, such as professional development, additional responsibilities on campus,
teaching at a high-priority school, teaching a subject for which teachers are in high
demand, and rewards for outstanding attendance (Ellis, 1984) Merit pay for teachers, or
paying teachers based upon their performance, is an idea that has been discussed for
many years; various school districts across America have implemented merit-based pay
programs, but most schools have had a difficult time creating a program that remains
successful (Glenn, 2002).
In order to put merit pay for teachers into action, an evaluation system must be
created. Teachers can be evaluated in two ways – teacher performance (what they are
actually doing as a professional to be effective in the classroom), or student performance
(how their students are achieving on benchmark tests, standardized assessments, or how
students are meeting pre-set objectives). Additionally, the evaluation system could be
based upon a combination of both teacher performance and student performance (Ellis,
1984). Typically, teachers who are doing their job effectively are encouraging their
students to succeed, and so they would excel in both categories.
Merit pay would drastically change the current system of how teachers are paid
and how teachers are evaluated. Currently, most school districts have salary schedules
that provide pay raises based upon increases in number of years of teaching experience
2
Merit-Based Pay
3
and the number of post-undergraduate degree coursework units completed (Ellis, 1984;
Glenn, 2002). This salary schedule does not take into account any part of the teacher’s
performance in the classroom, especially after the teacher has earned tenure. In regards
to a teacher’s salary, the “most important job – teaching – goes unmeasured and
unrewarded” (Olsen, 2001, p.1). This can create an environment of highly unmotivated
teachers; if a teacher is working very hard to make sure her students succeed, planning
highly engaging lessons and activities, and spending countless “off-the-job” hours
preparing for school, and she is being paid the same amount as a teacher who works only
from 8:00am to 3:00pm with minimal exertion, why would anyone who is not highly
intrinsically motivated want to put in the extra effort? Merit pay systems could
potentially alleviate this hostility because teachers would be rewarded for their hard
work.
Most other industries in America have some type of merit-based pay system,
rewarding their employees for a job well done. However, this has been a problem for
education, because there is not a standard system in place to measure the effectiveness of
teachers. Many studies have been conducted about the effect teachers have on students’
learning. In 1966, James S. Coleman and colleagues from John Hopkins University
found that “students’ success in school was almost entirely dependent upon their
socioeconomic background” (Glenn, 2002, p.16). This concept has been reiterated
numerous times and is commonly experienced by teachers who teach in urban, inner-city
areas. One argument against merit pay is that certain students, in spite of any teacher
effort, are not willing or able to succeed because of their environment. A lack of support
from family members, being raised in a non-academic culture or environment, and being
Merit-Based Pay
4
constantly surrounded by choices that work against success in school lead many urban or
inner-city students to fail. Is this the fault of the teacher, or a side effect of American
society? Most likely, both factors contribute.
Another study, conducted by William L. Sanders at the University of Tennessee,
contradicted this idea. Sanders found that “teachers have an enormous influence on
student performance” in spite of socioeconomic situations (Glenn, 2002, p.16). Students
of similar skill level and family background who have different teachers do not turn out
the same. A merit pay system would reward teachers whose students excel.
Arguments in Favor of Merit Pay
Earning a salary that is based on performance would encourage teachers to
actually teach – to use the instructional time that they have each day effectively. There
are many teachers at each school campus across America who are not doing this. So
many teachers give their students busy work – worksheets to complete, endless
assignments that require no actual thought or imagination. Furthermore, videos are
constantly being shown in classrooms. There are ways to use educational videos
effectively, but many teachers show videos in their entirety, without an accompanying
assignment. Also, videos are shown that barely relate to material; one example that I
have personally observed is showing the Disney movie “Finding Nemo” to teach students
about aquatic ecosystems. While this topic is mentioned in the movie, it is not the main
theme, and therefore I see it as a complete waste of instructional time.
Merit pay would require an evaluation system so that teachers would be held
accountable for time spent in the classroom; if they did not teach the required material,
they would not succeed in evaluations, and therefore they would not earn any bonus pay.
Merit-Based Pay
5
Just as a sales associate earns commission based upon her amount of sales or number of
satisfied customers, under a merit pay system, teachers would be paid based upon their
performance, instead of their number of years teaching.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 states that all children are entitled to a
high-quality education. The Statement of Purpose in NCLB declares:
The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and
significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a
minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and
state academic assessments. (NCLB, 2001, p.15)
Under NCLB, schools are required to meet their adequate yearly progress (AYP), certain
standards that show their students improving to meet state and federal requirements.
American schools are to reach 100 percent proficiency, with all students achieving at the
“proficient” level, in the subjects of language arts and mathematics by the year 2014
(NCLB, 2001). Students’ performance is being measured based upon their standardized
test scores, but teacher effectiveness in preparing students to pass these standardized tests
is not. If a merit pay system were implemented, and part of the evaluation process to
determine bonuses or incentives for teachers included students’ standardized test scores,
the incorporation of a merit pay system could potentially help schools achieve their AYP;
more teachers would be motivated, monetarily, to help prepare their students to pass the
standardized tests.
In addition, schools in urban, inner-city, or low-income areas often have a very
difficult time attracting highly-qualified teachers. Teaching positions at those schools are
usually not viewed as desirable, which leads to the hiring of inexperienced, often underqualified or under-prepared teachers (Guisbond & Neill, 2004). Looking at American
schools from an outsider’s perspective, one would see that “it’s the most needy kids who
Merit-Based Pay
6
tend to get taught by the least experienced teachers. That doesn’t make any sense”
(Glenn, 2002, p.17). A merit pay program that would reward teachers for working in
high-priority schools could help these schools to attract higher-quality teachers by
making the teaching positions more valuable. This would potentially move these schools
closer to their goals of NCLB, providing students in the low-income areas with a better
education (Anderson, Medrich, & Fowler, 2007).
Arguments against Merit Pay
Students have differing levels of aptitude and motivation, and different teachers
teach different levels of students. For example, at Saugus High School, all freshmen are
enrolled in biology. There are four different levels of biology courses: AP Biology,
which is the most advanced, for highly-motivated, college-bound students; Honors
Biology, which is a step below AP, also for highly-motivated, college-bound students,
but for freshmen who are not developmentally prepared for a rigorous college-level
course; Biology A/B, which is for students functioning at normal skill levels for high
school freshmen, and Biology 2 A/B, which is for the rest of the freshmen student
population, with many students who fall below normal skill levels, who have failed in
previous math and science courses, and who are typically unmotivated to achieve in
school. Should the teachers of the Biology 2 students be penalized monetarily because
the majority of their students lack motivation? A merit pay system would definitely need
to take the students’ level of skill and motivation into account, as teachers cannot
typically change these factors.
Another problem with merit-based pay is that it could potentially turn into a
popularity contest. The teachers who are friends with administrators may be evaluated
Merit-Based Pay
7
differently than teachers who are not. Additionally, teachers who volunteer for programs
outside of their own classroom, such as club advisement, coaching, or running after
school programs, may be seen as high-quality teachers by the administration, but this
evaluation is not based upon what is happening inside these teachers’ classrooms.
Teachers who spend their extra time preparing excellent lessons for their students should
not be penalized for not volunteering for additional tasks outside of the classroom.
My Position on Merit Pay
In my opinion, merit pay has potential for improving the teaching profession.
However, I have certain reservations. The current system for teacher evaluation needs
major reform. I do not agree with the existing tenure policy, the certainty that one’s job
is secure no matter what is done during the school day. This policy can lead to teachers
who have been teaching for many years but have not changed their teaching methods,
even though their student population has drastically changed and their methods are no
longer effective (Tucker, 1997). Furthermore, tenure can lead to schools with teachers
that administration wants to dismiss but are unable to because of the tenure policy. Even
teachers that have been deemed incompetent by administration are not easily forced to
resign. This is “a serious problem that undermines the education of millions of children,
staff morale, and the publics’ perception of education” (Tucker, 1997, p.103)
As teachers, we are doing our nation a great disservice if we are not providing our
students with the education they need to succeed in the world outside of school. On a
regular basis, I hear students discussing the lack of work they have for many of their
classes, the number of videos they watch on a regular basis, and the amount of time that
is wasted during their school day. I also observe colleagues who abuse their instructional
Merit-Based Pay
8
time, arriving right before the morning bell rings, leaving right after the final bell rings,
and giving “busy” work with very little educational value to their students during the
school day.
Currently, the administration is doing nothing to improve the situation. Teachers
are evaluated every other year by an administrator who announces at least a week in
advance the date and time he or she will be coming to observe a lesson. Of course, on
that day, the teacher is going to provide an excellent learning experience for his or her
students, but is this a true reflection of what is taking place on a regular basis? In most
cases, I would say no. I am supportive of a merit pay system that would encourage more
in-depth evaluation of teacher performance, evaluation on a more regular basis that
would really reflect what a teacher is doing as a professional in his or her classroom.
However, I am wary of a merit pay system that uses student performance,
particularly student performance on standardized tests, as a form of teacher evaluation. I
am a teacher who teaches three lower-level courses, mainly composed of highly
unmotivated students, many who did not technically graduate from middle school but
were promoted to high school anyway. Most of these students choose not to try to learn,
no matter how much effort I put in as the teacher. Additionally, if I were a teacher of the
highest-achieving students, and the merit evaluation were based upon student
improvement, I would not support that either. The highest-level students would already
be performing at the top of the scale, leaving very little room, if any, for future
improvement.
Merit-Based Pay
9
Conclusion
Merit pay has many positive aspects, but many negative aspects as well. I feel
that a merit pay system could benefit the teaching profession and provide reforms that are
drastically necessary to improve America’s educational system, but only if the merit pay
system is implemented correctly. A merit pay system that I would support would have to
incorporate both teacher performance and student performance as portions of the
evaluation. Teachers need to be observed many times, by other teachers and by
administrators, and observations need to be unannounced to ensure that they reflect what
is actually occurring in the classroom on a regular basis. Student performance
evaluations need to be based upon several factors, rather than one standardized
assessment, and need to take into account student skill level and motivation. A merit pay
system of this sort would be difficult to design and to implement, but if done correctly,
could help American education improve.
Merit-Based Pay
10
References
Anderson, Sharon, Medrich, Elliot, & Fowler, Donna. (2007). Which Achievement Gap?
Phi Delta Kappan, March 547-550.
Ellis, Thomas I. (1984). Merit Pay for Teachers. ERIC Clearinghouse for Educational
Management, ERIC Digest 10.
Glenn, David. (2002). A Gold Star for Merit Pay? Chronicle of Higher Education, May
16-18.
Guisbond, Lisa & Neill, Monty. (2004). Failing Our Children: No Child Left Behind
undermines quality and equity in education. The Clearing House, Fall 12-15.
Olsen, Darcy Ann. (2001). Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay. CATO
Institute, cato.org, May 22, 2001.
Tucker, Pamela D. (1997). Lake Wobegon: Where All Teachers Are Competent (Or,
Have We Come to Terms with the Problem of Incompetent Teachers?). Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, September 103-126.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R.1, 107th Congress, 2nd Session (2002).