As a teacher in a Career Ladder district (a merit-pay program), I am no stranger to merit pay. In fact, as a second-career teacher, I have experience being rewarded for my performance, not simply the number of years I’ve been on the job.
In the midst of an economic crisis, President Obama recently called for teacher pay for performance—student performance, that is. I am all for improving student performance. And while I can see how a teacher’s instructional ability is directly tied to student performance, there are so many other factors that are part of the puzzle. How will it all be measured?
Is it really fair to weigh a teacher’s salary—or salary increase—on student performance? Take the 10th grader who is absent 30 days during the school year because she has to babysit her baby brother. Or the kindergartener who has never been read to, simply because his parents didn’t know the importance of reading and language.
To base a teacher’s salary on the performance of these students is doing a disservice to everyone involved. It is telling the teacher she didn’t impact students because a few students didn’t meet the formulaic goal set by someone who has never set foot in her, or quite possibly, any classroom. And it is sending a message to students that are at an educational disadvantage that their progress doesn’t count, simply because they don’t meet a standard set, again, by someone that doesn’t know their circumstances.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for rewarding teachers for a job well done. But that job must be measured by more than just whether or not students meet the standards. Professional development, school and district leadership, community involvement, and much more should be part of the equation. And when measuring student performance, measure overall growth. Not every student is capable of meeting predetermined standards for their grade level. But, with highly trained, motivated teachers, every student is capable of growth!
