Merit pay for deserving teachers is a concept valued by American culture, and seems like a great idea for improving student learning outcomes. However, is it possible there are hidden, unintended consequences for our education system? What could be the harm in rewarding a teacher for a job well done?

In Part 1 of this series on merit pay, I explained how teachers typically qualify for bonus pay using the Dallas ISD model as an example. This is a model favored by some Texas politicians. Part of the Dallas plan uses student test performance, like the STAAR Test (the Texas standardized test given to public school students). I explained how it is impossible to disaggregate a single teacher’s influence on student test performance from the school system’s effect. Because we are unable to quantify a single teacher’s effect on student learning, it seems unfair to use student test performance to evaluate teachers, much less as a qualification for bonus pay. For more on the system’s affect on individual performance, see my blog post “The New Debate in Sports: The GOAT – Jordan or Brady?”

In Part 2, I explain some psychological effects of merit pay. Ultimately, merit pay assumes teachers need extra pay as a motivator to improve their skills and produce better student learning outcomes. It’s ridiculous to think teachers are withholding their best efforts or saving their best lesson plans for a bonus. Instead, they sacrifice everyday, giving their all for their students. Using merit pay as a motivator for teachers will never surpass their inner passion to see their students learn. So, why not raise pay for all teachers, not just some we deem deserving?

The Danger of Numerical Goals

Now, let’s examine the effects of numerical goals and the yearly evaluation. Recently, I found this article from The Hustle ridiculously describing what can happen when we focus on metrics versus the aim of an organization. It illustrates how the system suffers when individuals meet quotas and goals that seemingly align with the aim of the system. Yet, numerical goals are short-sighted and can actually become a barrier to the intended purpose of the system. For example, an Emergency Room may have a goal to reduce wait time. To meet the goal, patients might wait in ambulances outside the Emergency Room. This accomplishes the goal, but does not help patients needing emergency services. This is why W. Edwards Deming warned against the use of numerical goals, and asked by what method will improvement be made?

Goals Without Method Move Focus Away from Aim and Purpose of School

We see the same effect when teachers are rated and evaluated, especially when involving bonuses. It would seem that qualifications for earning merit pay would align with the purpose of education. However, when we attach numbers or ratings to these qualifications, we make take the focus away from the aim of the system to hitting targets and goals. Teachers can hit these targets for student learning outcomes, but at what cost? What happens to our students’ innate love for learning? Are students able to retain the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom beyond the test, or do they quickly forget? Are they able to apply what they learned beyond the test or even outside the classroom? What about fudging the numbers or outright cheating? We’ve seen examples of educators cheating state standardized testing in Atlanta and Houston. When teachers work to check the boxes for a bonus, the focus shifts from the aim of the system (long-term thinking) to accomplishing goals (short-term thinking).

Let me pause here and clarify something. I am in no way blaming the teacher for focusing on numerical goals. When a teacher works to hit numerical targets, they are doing their job. We’ve heard for too long teachers voice their concerns and frustration over teaching to the test (state standardized tests). This is a systemic problem and only leadership can protect teachers from this focus by transforming our education system.

In addition to state standardized testing goals, the yearly evaluation of a teacher can move the focus of a teacher to these short-term goals. In the late 1980s, when Texas attempted a merit pay system called Career Ladder, teachers talked often about the “dog and pony show” when their appraiser came into the classroom for a formal observation. The focus can become the rating and not improvement of the skill of the teacher.

As an administrator, when I evaluated teachers, I found ratings can become a barrier to improvement. Sure, we want to know how well we are doing, but what does the number attached to an evaluation mean? I found greater growth in teachers when conversation was focused on feedback, rather than a quick number generated, especially when the feedback came from students. They are the ones in the classroom everyday, not me the administrator. I can help guide a teacher, but feedback from students were much more valuable than mine.

The Dallas model uses the Student Learning Objective (SLO) in their evaluation system and qualification for merit pay. I was trained in the SLO, and worked with teachers as they progressed through the process. The SLO uses a rating system. Rating the SLO is a complex process and scores can vary from one evaluator to another. During our training, as we evaluated sample SLOs, I noticed our scores on a single SLO could range from two to five on a 5-point scale. The ratings were all over the place. Fortunately, our district kept the SLO as a student growth indicator, but did not assign a rating of the SLO to the teacher. From my experience, using the SLO rating as part of the qualification process for merit pay seems unreliable and unfair to teachers.

Rating, especially a complex process like the SLO, limits transparency. It tarnishes the process. Ratings introduces fear among teachers. It encourages fudging numbers, hiding problems, and even choosing a goal more easily attainable to to get a better score. The focus is on the number, not student learning. Because we did not rate the SLO, I experienced open, transparent, and honest conversations with teachers about what they learned about their students. They found value in the process, not a rating.

In my opinion, there are serious flaws in a merit pay system affecting students, teachers, and our schools. We want teachers collaborating, not competing against one another for merit pay. We want teachers to tapping into their powerful inner drive to help students learn, not motivated by a bonus. We want teachers who are open and transparent about their own learning and development, not focused on checking a box or hitting a numerical target. We want all involved focused on the purpose of education (long-term thinking) and not on yearly quotas or goals (short-term thinking). All of our teachers deserve better pay, not just a few. Pay our teachers what they deserve, and transform the education system allowing them do what they do best.

Share this:

Tweet





Print



Like this: Like Loading...