Merit Pay / Teacher Evaluations

This topic is heavily tied to the last (high stakes testing), as the most frequent requirement for merit-based pay bonuses is an increase in standardized testing scores. Merit-based bonuses are, among other issues we have discussed in this class, an application of free-market principles within an inappropriate context. The overwhelming consensus of the literature seems to agree with Ravitch's (2013) statement that "the paradox of merit pay in education is that even if it did work, it would still fail" (p.122). I take that to mean that even if we assume that the requirements for merit pay are valid measures, that teachers require the possibility of a pay bump to 'try harder,' and such a system was implemented without bias, the results would still be bad education.

Ravitch notes a few general findings from different forms of merit-based bonus systems. The first is that teachers tend to tailor their curriculum towards the middle of student achievement levels, spending less time with advanced students (whose growth is less measurable) and struggling students (who require a disproportionate amount of effort) (p.117). Another tendency is to narrow curricular focus towards tested subjects (p. 117). Finally, even if we remove standardized testing from the requirements for a bonus and focus only on teacher evaluations, morale and motivation among teachers goes down (p.119). All of these outcomes, which I hope we can agree are entirely negative, rely on the assumption that standardized testing is a valid means of measuring learning, which our previous readings should call into question.

The inclusion of teacher evaluations into merit-pay discussions also requires an analysis of their usefulness and validity. This is a bit more complicated than simply measuring standardized test scores, as teacher observations/evaluations at least offer the opportunity for some degree of reflectivity and adaptation. I have actually enjoyed being observed, because I like the opportunity for feedback from administrators who are invested in the particular requirements of a given educational environment. The usefulness of these evaluations, though, is dependent on administrators who have time for rigorous observation of teachers, the existence of mentoring and professional development to shore up areas of weakness, and evaluations that measure authentic criteria (Donaldson, 2016). When not tied to merit pay (for the reasons mentioned above), I think there is at least an opportunity for usefulness here.

I enjoyed Ravitch's emphasis that merit pay is not a new idea (p.116) but a failed practice that keeps getting revisited because free market principles simply must work. As if the only thing that is preventing me from becoming a highly effective teacher is an extra $1,500 per year. Its fine, I guess, if policy makers want to trust capitalism so much, but maybe they could try increasing teacher wages across the board to allow the possibility of entrance into the upper middle class if they like competition so much.


References

Donaldson, M. L. (2016). Teacher Evaluation Reform: Focus, Feedback, and Fear. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 72-76.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America's public schools. Vintage.