A study being billed as the most rigorous of its kind has just determined that merit pay does practically squat when it comes to elevating student achievement.

And to that I say, “No Duh.”

I say, “No Duh,” because I am familiar with the work of Daniel Pink. His book Drive speaks to an aspect of the merit pay issue.

I say, “No Duh,” because student achievement is being assessed by bubble tests, a means of gaining insight into the work of real teachers and real students that is so flawed I’d find less holes in a brick of Swiss cheese.

I say, “No Duh,” because I can’t ever remember once being in a classroom and thinking to myself, I am going to work harder at the job of educating these kids right now because it is connected to my own personal bottom line.

People do not become teachers for the pay. Sure, they need the pay. Sure, they like the pay. And yes, they do leave the job because the pay doesn’t prove to be enough to meet their own fiscal needs. But if the pay was the driving force behind the choice of which profession to enter, a job candidate would be a fool not to look at a score of different careers first. After all, the ceiling on how much a teacher can make tops out at middle class.

That’s the max. For a CPA, MD, PhD, lawyer, architect, investment banker, software engineer – I could name a boatload of other professions – there is no “topping out.”

But for a teacher who does not take a second job (and how many teachers do I know with second jobs… plus working spouses… who are still living very much non-extravagent – at least as far as being an American goes; internationally a whole different story – lives?) you know the score before you ever sign up for the gig.

Teachers go from struggling to make ends meet when they enter the profession to maxing out at middle class. Never “flush” without a secondary stream of income. Therefore, merit pay becomes crumbs on the table instead of some sort of life-altering financial feast.

Which is the way people are trying to sell it to the American public.

I bring all this up because it leads to an, “Eh, I could live without it” mentality for the teacher being tossed the carrot of merit pay. It’s not really all that big a carrot… and the hoops through which one is already being asked to jump are already so plentiful in the world of teaching that at some point, enough is enough.

Merit pay presumes people becomes teachers for the paycheck. They don’t. (See above.)
Merit pay presumes our own personal finances as educators trump the well-being of the people we are trying to serve. It doesn’t. (To wit, look at all the cash teachers spend out of their own pockets each and every year on classroom supplies.)
Merit pay presumes that if you simply throw money at a problem the problem will go away. BZZZP! Wrong again.

And merit pay forgets that good teachers work hard regardless of whether or not they are being paid for their work. Doubt me, think of all those unpaid, lunch hours, before school, after school, give-a-bit-more-of-my-time moments over the course of a teacher’s life.

A work-for-hire construction worker doesn’t hammer one nail without there being compensation for his labor. A teacher? Heck, they’ll give up Saturdays for a month without even blinking. (I know, I’ve done it.) And yes, I know salaried employees are supposed to above and beyond the 40 hour work week. Did you read my post about student to teacher class ratios?

Schools are complex, teaching is multi-layered and there is no one-size-fits all magic pill that can be applied to raising student achievement.

Merit pay? Teachers would rather have elevated professional resources and more intelligently functioning school environments than personal checks.

BTW… these thoughts on merit pay were provided free of charge. However, if you paid me for this blog post, would it really be any better? More passionate? OK, I wouldda proffed it betterly for misuses of the eNglish lengauge.

Merit pay… theoretically it might make sense but in practicality… yet another screen door on a submarine.

We all know that bringing in young, energetic, enthusiastic teachers is critical to the success of American public education – especially in the future. Why? Because the law of nature dictates that nurturing youthful seeds is the way to eventually build healthy, well-developed gardens.

And yet, America is dropping the educational ball on this front. Egregiously.

When the pink slips get distributed and the ax chops, who are the first to go? Our youngest teachers. Why? Because in school today we value duration of service over quality of service. (And no, I am not usually a union basher but on this matter, they don’t really make the best case in my opinion. Quality of service should count more than years of service and it’s a falsehood to automatically equate one – time spent teaching – with the other… excellence of teaching.)

Furthermore, let’s look at some of the more practical aspects of working… like the paycheck one takes home.

Last year my district cut our pay by 3%. Next year they are talking about us taking another 10% pay cut.

A 13% pay cut in two years? Not the best way to either retain or attract talent, I’d say.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. What would most people say to the Harvard Valedictorian if they informed the world that they were going to become a middle school English teacher? Not an esteemed professor. Not national leader. Not even a wretched, ink-stained author. (The most reprehensible of ‘em all, when you think of it – LOL!)

The answer would be, “A mere middle school teacher? But why?”

It’s getting harder to answer that question these days and if you re-read this blog post in the year 2020, well… don’t say “We never told ya so.”

My school district has already let us know that there are more cuts coming. Big ones. To personnel.

And it’s not just my school district that plans on breaking out the hatchet. More teachers are going to lose their jobs and I’ve even heard that some districts are talking about a 10-12% pay cut on top of drastic personnel cuts.

10-12%!?

At what point does the public refuse to accept this?
At what point do we refuse?

At my school, we took a 3% pay cut this year, furlough days, and lost a heck of a lot of teachers. Forget the lesser resources, no school nurse or librarian, an unfilled AP position, and more impacted classrooms.

BTW, lots of schools did likewise.

Question: Would you come back to work next year for 12% less pay, even less resources, and an even greater workload that is comprised of higher expectations with even less support? Are we powerless because they have the ability to hold our livelihoods over us or are we able to stand up and say no more?

Across the country, the web (this ning) allows us the opportunity to mobilize in a manner unlike any we have ever before seen.

Therefore, at what point do we refuse to accept the terms that are becoming more and more and more unacceptable?

Is a Tornado Sized National Teacher Strike Brewing? How Far can Teachers Be Pushed?

It could be done, ya know. And it would be historical.

Is push about to come to shove in 2010?

BTW, we could simply stop testing for 3 years and allow those billions to remain in the system to fund the actual “teaching” that the schools are supposed to do. Anyone notice how testing has not been cut while everything else has? Hmmm… I wonder who is making a financial killing off of that right now?

The University of California is now mulling charging different rates for different majors. In this article, they cite the example of the engineering student. Because such a kid uses more tangible and costly resources in their field of study, colleges are now mulling the idea of making that student pay more for their schooling. For example, since engineering majors erect 20 foot long concrete canoes using university money for class projects (and the university foots the bill for the raw materials) it costs the school a lot more to educate this student than it would, say, an English major (because that kid pretty much buys all their own books and taps primarily into the university’s brain power to pursue their degree and not their wet cement supply as well as their brain power).

I gotta say, it seems sort of fair to me. I mean when I go out to eat, they don’t charge me the same price for lobster as they do a hot dog. If the “goods” cost more to provide to the customer, the customer almost always is asked to take on the extra burden of price. Besides, people everywhere across this country are used to paying different prices for different things. If anything, I kinda gotta ask, “How come they didn’t start doing this years ago?”

Of course, the question becomes, “Will the more expensive majors see a decline in enrollment?” I am not sure. But I’d speculate that the more expensive majors will typically offer higher paying job prospects as well. Compare the engineer’s average pay to the average philosophy major’s average pay and a cost benefit analysis would most probably show some type of corollary between an “it’ll cost ya more” type of degree to a “it’ll earn ya more” type of profession.

And what about the more popular majors? Shouldn’t they also pay a premium in this land of supply and demand? I mean right now the Toyota Prius, a car that get 48 mpg, sells for above sticker price because so many people want to buy a hybrid car. On the other hand, a Chevy Tahoe, an SUV that gets like 11 mpg, has all sorts of crazy discounts being offered. I mean business majors are more popular than ever — why not charge more for a business degree than a poli sci degree? Supply and demand, right?

So the question becomes, are universities about to charge a la carte prices instead of buffet style admission depending on the major chosen? Seems that way.

One thing that is sure to come is the outrage from the kids that are going to see their tuition raised yet again. It’s like the airline traveller that has to pay for bags.

In times of budget issues people sharpen their pencils. Only question now is, am I entitled to a refund? I’ve never built a cement canoe in my life. Actually, wouldn’t a cement canoe sink? Guess that’s why we need engineering majors in the first place — the only time us English folks often have concerns about canoes is when Huck and Jim are trapped in one with a pair of rapscallions!

Here’s a quote from a major new study about merit pay:

Overall, our results consistently indicate that the increased focus on individual teacher performance caused a sizable and statistically significant decline in student achievement.

Read it again. It’s a bold accusation. “…increased focus on individual teacher performance caused a sizable and statistically significant decline in student achievement.”

That’s right, a DECLINE.

Here’s the link to the entire piece.

Now, I am not going to get into a debate about the veracity of this study. There might be a ba-zillion things wrong with it which I have no means — or desire — to try and defend. But it does raise an interesting question:

Isn’t it just speculation to assume that merit pay is actually going to raise student performance in a significant and salient manner? And what if this hypothesis about the merits of merit pay are wrong? How is it going to ravage our current system? What is going to be the fallout for kids, schools and teachers? What might we expect in terms of collateral damage to our current feeble structure and are these costs that make prudent sense to pay?

Merit pay is a weird one for me. I mean on one hand, I think I’d get a salary bump. I work hard, my kids do well and I toil with diligence at my job to the point of workaholic-ism (in an inner-city school where we have severe issues top-to-bottom). Like I said, for me personally, I suspect I’d benefit. Maybe not, but I think I’d be a candidate.

On the other hand, I am not sure how good it’s gonna be for the kids? Or morale? Or communities? Am I going to want to share my best lesson plans with the teacher down the hall if only one of us is going to be financially rewarded for higher test scores? Do I really want to see my allies as my competitors? Am I really going to want to take on kids with issues of truancy knowing that their absenteeism might be taking food off of my own dinner table?

All in all, I just don’t know — but the study about makes me hope that the people in charge are looking before they leap.