OK, Arne Duncan likes test scores. Let's start with accountability at the top. Chicago schools went nowhere in the 7 years he ran them. Here's your pink slip, Mr D. Your pay was about 5 times more than the average teacher who actually stood in front of a classroom and did something, but we won't ask you to return it. Good luck with your next gig. May you live long and prosper.

Liz, ya gotta speed up the turnaround if you want to see any dialog here.

I have serious questions about the feasibility of a merit pay system. A student’s academic success depends on a variety of factors. How can we hold teachers solely accountable? Even the most dedicated and talented teachers may be dealing with unmotivated students, uncooperative parents, or unsupportive administrators—all of which create obstacles to success. A child’s education is a collaborative process that requires a commitment from the student, parent and teacher. Positive and constructive communication among all three is essential.

Another issue is that a merit pay system cannot possibly take into account the non-academic impact teachers make on the lives of their students. What about the teacher who helps a student overcome a debilitating lack of self-confidence? What about the teacher who mentors a rebellious teen, causing him to change his attitude toward school and his future? What about the teacher who supports a child facing a life-altering crisis, such as the death of a parent? How do you measure the positive influence teachers have on the social, emotional and character development of their students?

I have serious questions about the feasibility of a merit pay system. A student’s academic success depends on a variety of factors. How can we hold teachers solely accountable? Even the most dedicated and talented teachers may be dealing with unmotivated students, uncooperative parents, or unsupportive administrators—all of which create obstacles to success. A child’s education is a collaborative process that requires a commitment from the student, parent and teacher. Positive and constructive communication among all three is essential.

Another issue is that a merit pay system cannot possibly take into account the non-academic impact teachers make on the lives of their students. What about the teacher who helps a student overcome a debilitating lack of self-confidence? What about the teacher who mentors a rebellious teen, causing him to change his attitude toward school and his future? What about the teacher who supports a child facing a life-altering crisis, such as the death of a parent? How do you measure the positive influence teachers have on the social, emotional and character development of their students?

I am a Special Educator. I love my job.

However, were my job security based on formal standardized test performance of my students -- even based in part on that performance, to be honest -- I would leave the field.

Until and unless a reasonable, rational, fair and individualized way to measure special education students' achievements and progress is developed and used in place of formal assessment performance, I could not accept this criteria -- not for myself, and not for my students.

There's a reason I am a Special Educator, and it has nothing to do with measuring performance using inappropriate methods and tools.

I am math instructor. I don't understand why all teachers are afraid formal standardized tests. I support this criteria because another criteria like opinion of the supervisor about performance is subjective and sometimes wrong. If you know math statistics then you need to understand that accountability must use many results and many years.

@ Rudolf - I agree, if there were a system that could truly do a good job of measuring a teacher's effect on student learning, that would be a great thing. So let's think about what such a system would entail.

First of all, you have to account for the range of abilities and skills that the student brings to the classroom on day one. This is a lot more than just the student’s prior knowledge in the subject being taught, because, as you know, you can have two students with no prior knowledge of algebra, and one will soak it up like a sponge while the other struggles. So what you need is not just a measure of students’ prior knowledge of algebra, but of their capacity to learn algebra. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument you can give students a reliable aptitude test on the first day of class, and let’s say that test gives a one dimensional measure of aptitude X.

Second, since some kids will have high X while others have low X, you’ve got to have some scale equating how much progress you can expect out a teacher with a class of high Xs versus low Xs. Again suppose for the sake of argument you can measure the amount of learning that took place on a one dimensional scale. Call that Y. If a teacher gets an average of 3Y out of class of low X kids, is that better or worse than 5Y for a teacher with a class of high X kids? Where is the scale equation going to come from?

Third, kids are going to learn from each other, so you have to account not just for the X of each individual student but the compositional effect of all the other kids in the class.

Fourth, kids are going to be learning (or not) from other teachers, and that could help you or hurt you. For example, kids’ progress in reading comprehension might be helped by a good social studies class So you’ve got to take into account synergistic effects of other teachers and the integration of the curriculum.

Messy enough yet?

What about kids who come into your class midway through the semester? Do you get held accountable for them? If yes, is that fair? If no, wouldn’t you worry about them landing in classrooms where the teacher neglects them because they don’t “count”?

These are just a few issues off the top of my head. I’m sure you can come up with more. Let’s not even get into the problems of measuring aptitude and progress in things like writing, science, social studies, and foreign languages.

Now multiply this time 4-6 subjects and 8-10 grades and ask yourself where all the money and expertise is going to come from to design, build, and maintain such a system. Compared to this, the current Maryland assessment system is child’s play.

The real danger of not doing things right is that the weakest students will be hurt, because anybody who taught them would be putting their career at risk.

This is one of those thorny issues that comes through education about every 15-20 years. I believe that most teachers would agree that excellent educators deserve some sort of "merit" pay. The problem has always been how to identify those excellent educators. Are they the ones who deal with the lowest level of learners and move them along on a consistent basis? Are they the ones whose students have consistently high scores on standardized tests? Are they the ones who are able to help other teachers improve their craft? Ideally, all of these people should be qualified as "merit pay" recipients. However, we know that it is much easier to just look at test scores Florida tried to institute merit pay in the 80's using a combination of test results and observation instruments. It worked up to a point. Because the program wasn't properly funded, most of the people who deserved the pay never received it. Left lots of hard feelings. And, Michael, you were correct--teachers ran from the lower performing students because they knew that they would never get merit pay by teaching them. So, until we can come up with an objective evaluation for a totally subjective job, merit pay is going to be a dud.

The only way for California education to stand a chance is for union concessions.

There is a way to measure student achievement. You test the student at the beginning of the year and at the end. It's pretty easy to evaluate progress over a one-year period. This has been a proven methodology.

The comments and questions that Natalie and Mary bring up are completely valid. These issues are thorny, indeed - and of course a system such as this would require many more debates at the state and national level.

However, we are at a point where too many teachers have been protected for far too long doing the minimal (and sometimes less) job that they should be doing. Somehow this practice must be eradicated. Educating our next generation is the most important of all vocations, since it is a direct way to ensure the success of our future society.

Not every teacher is intrinsically motivated to work harder every day just to help a few students. I'm afraid that programs like merit pay may be one way to entice these teachers to work harder. I just can't stand the fact that so many teachers continue to teach each year by handing out worksheets and/or short-changing their kids out of a quality education by repeating the same tired lessons from 25 years ago.

Unions have protected lazy teachers for too long. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the history of the Unions, and the rights that have been protected for me because of their hard work. But at some point everyone forgot what they were fighting for, or let it get lost along the way. Instead now, we have teachers that "work to rule" (and sometimes less) just to make a point. The only point being made is that our society's future is less important than their point.

Whether it be merit pay or some other paradigm shift, our education system needs a jolt.

@Greer -

Great comment! As North Ave is shaking up schools and trying to rid them of complacency in the face of poor results, something has to happen at the individual teacher level. My kids don't interact with Dr. A or even the principal. They spend their school days with teachers.

We can quibble about objective measurements, but can't the administrators tell the difference between excited, enthusiastic teachers and burned-out, in-it-for-the-paycheck teachers? It seems pretty clear to me from going to back to school nights and talking to my kids. I know there are shades of grey between the two extremes, but you'd think some sort of qualitative measurement could be made.

Most professionals live with less than ideal merit based performance systems. You work with them and try to make them better. The concept of no merit based raises is just not an option.

Great dialog and viewpoints. Just to jump into two points.

If merit pay was instituted, first of all where is the money coming from. We don't pay teachers enough as it is and many didn't receive raises this year so where is the money coming from to provide bonus or merit pay. Then think about those teachers teaching our most challenging students. A student comes in after moving between 10-12 schools by 4th grade. That student is reading at a 1st grade level. The teacher uses every trick in the book to move that child to a 3rd grade reading level by March, yet that student fails the standardized assessments for 4th grade. Is the teacher a failure? Is the student a failure? Does that teacher get the same amount of merit pay as the teacher in a non-challenging school who moved students from reading at a beginning 4th grade reading level to a beginning 5th grade reading level in a year? It's not a what if scenario, these students who are far behind because of life factors and parental choices are in our schools on a daily basis. The difference is teachers are held accountable to students and families. Teachers don't want students to fail or not learn. However, in our era of teaching to the test teachers are not given free reign to teach what students need or provided social service assistance to address the student's basic needs in addition to learning. There are too many testing grids and schedules that you keep moving so your on schedule and you can only use the curriculum provided even if it is not a quality curriculum that meets the needs of students. If teachers were provided all necessary tools, human resources as well as material resources, and permitted to teach to their students needs there would be more successful students and a smaller achievement gap. Instead it's a one size fits all, learn the same thing on the same day for everyone.

The second issue is unions protecting bad teachers. Really! Who is in charge of the observation and evaluation process? principals. Who has the ability to document the lack of teacher process and effectiveness and move tenured and non-tenured teachers to termination? the principal. Does the principal have to follow a process so a teacher isn't terminated unfairly?yes However, there is no union protection if the principal follows the process and documents accurately to terminate an ineffective teacher. Instead, principals move non-effective teachers around or mark them satisfactory so they can move them. It's laziness on the part of administrators that protects ineffective teachers not unions. No teacher wants to teach with an ineffective colleague. They want the principal to do their job in a fair way. If asked they can tell you what the principal can document and do to counsel that person from the profession. The major key to quality teachers is having a quality leader that promotes, supports, and does their job as a principal.
Just as this discussion started, there are good and bad superintendents, principals, teachers, parents, students, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, etc. However, we need to pull together and understand that it takes everyone working together and having a sense of accountability to move public education in the right direction. Blame or thinking it's one part of the puzzle alone will only allow us to remain stagnate.

Yeah, all I can say is that I'm just phoning it in for now... y'know, I'm teaching 'cause it's so easy, 'cause of the societal respect and the short hours... but if they offer me merit pay, I'll *really* kick it in and start working.

Yes, that's sarcasm. Hopefully it conveys how profoundly insulting I find the entire concept.