As I understand it, most pay for performance schemes don't reward high test scores, but improvements in test scores. Thus, a teacher in Baltimore City who took his or her kids from 20% passing to 40% passing would get a bonus, while a Howard County teacher whose kids went from 92% passing to 93% passing might not, or would at least get a much smaller bonus.

If you teach in middle or high school, you only see your kids for 60 or 90 minutes a day. If the other teachers aren't effective (or have quit...not an unusual occurence in the city) OR if there is a teaching vacancy in those subjects, you're not going to make exceptional progress, no matter how wonderful you are.

Denver has one of the most comprehensive "pay for performance"-type plans (ProComp), It was actually agreed to by the union, so it will be interesting to watch through full implementation. It is much more well-rounded than some of the other plans that just pay for test scores.

It rewards 4 main areas, student growth, market incentives (teaching in high needs areas, for example, as John-John mentioned), professional evaluation, and knowledge and skills.. More at:
https://procomp.dpsk12.org/earningscalc/

As a teacher I have to say that I'm totally against performance based pay.

And I have to ask this...Should parents receive bonuses for doing their job and holding up their end of the bargain? What I mean is... as teachers we can only do so much to improve these infamous test scores. If a child has zero support at home.... meaning no help with homework, nobody worrying about what time he/she goes to bed at night, not being fed breakfast in the morning, and no expectations of success and effort in school. How are we expected to work miracles and do the job of both teacher and parent in a 6 1/2 hour school day?

So until students are coming in at the same level... with the same supports and the same circumstances at home.... I think it's unfair to pay teachers based on performance.

In Baltimore County, special area teachers--physical education, art, music, library/media specialists, technology teachers--as well as guidance counselors are all on the same contract. That means that they would have to show improvement in their areas, too. More kids singing on key, more kids mastering the Dewey Decimal System, more physically fit kids, more tech-savvy kids, more well-adjusted, mentally healthy kids. Applying the whole merit-pay concept to these teachers' jobs really demonstrates how ridiculous it is to even think that paying/rewarding teachers for their students' achievement will actually improve the teachers' work or that it will help build a "better" teaching pool.

I don't care how much you pay my voice teacher. I am never going to perform on Broadway. Highly compensated counselors can't overcome the baggage that many children drag to school every day. And no matter how much cash you promise to toss at me, I am not going to be able to do a better job teaching 7- and 8-year-olds than I'm already doing. Throw the cash at more teachers, so we have smaller classes, and thus more time to work more closely with our kids. Throw the cash at companies that make expensive--but necessary--math manipulatives, air-conditioners, heaters, electric pencil-sharpeners, gym and playground equipment, textbooks, up-to-date technology.....

I swear, if I got a $10,000 raise, I'd chip in my own $10,000 and buy myself a part-time personal assistant to help me with paperwork, filing, email, organizing documents and resources, supervising kids, marking papers, etc.

Yes, I'd love to be richly compensated for teaching well. But I don't know how the concept could be applied fairly across grades, geographic area, class sizes, and subject matter.