« "Isn't it time we had a stupid president?" | Main | That'll Leave a Mark »
July 09, 2007
Teacher's Unions and Merit Pay
Jon comments:
Unions are perceived as an obstacle and not a partner to school reform. If they made concessions on merit pay, even on a trial basis, it would go a long way in terms of reducing skepticism of their self-interests.
They did! It just happened that John Kerry, who want to pursue merit pay, wasn't elected to the presidency. George W. Bush, who wanted to privatize Social Security, was. But that's not the teacher's union's fault. They, after all, tried very hard to get the guy proposing merit pay elected.
Even so, merit pay has been introduced, with union support, in Minneapolis, DC, Houston, and many other localities. It's simply no longer the case that teacher's unions are monolithically standing in the way of merit pay. And while I'm pretty firmly in favor of such policies, it's also not the case that merit pay has sparked a miracle revitalization in any school districts. It's a good policy, but part and parcel of this weird overvaluing of programs that are seen as diminishing the strength of teacher's unions.
July 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
The real question for the Mickey Kaus's of the world is, what do you replace the pay scales and job security that teachers unions provide with? Kaus is always saying that it needs to be easier to fire teachers. But that job security is an incentive to be a teacher. We're already having a terrible time attracting qualified people to the profession, by Kaus's own opinion. How does removing one of the incentives for employment help attract better people? Why would a talented, dedicated and educated young worker become a teacher, with the already low pay for teachers, if you removed the job security?
Posted by: Freddie | Jul 9, 2007 12:25:57 PM
Following up on what Freddie said, I can't imagine why teachers might be focused on job security, what with the low pay, long hours (and anyone who says otherwise doesn't really know any teachers), lack of actual resources, random overlapping cumulative top-down intensely politicized impossible obligations imposed by mostly Republican legislators who actually hate teachers, and near-random quality of incoming students who are supposed to be transformed into nice uniformly successful outgoing students.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 9, 2007 12:32:12 PM
The reason teachers unions in general have stood firmly against merit pay since the Great Depression is that it rapidly devolves into a tool for favoritism and punishment by vindictive principals. I see no evidence that human nature has changed in this respect since 1929.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jul 9, 2007 12:38:32 PM
Merit pay is one thing; my proposal (higher pay for science, math, and harder schools) isn't nearly as subject to retaliatory use IMO.
Posted by: SamChevre | Jul 9, 2007 12:46:45 PM
How do they measure merit? This is a weird question and one I don't like most of the possible answers to (I think once on this blog someone answered "through test scores," which seems to be both horridly unfair to teachers who wind up with less test-ready kids and a bad measurement of teaching ability anyway, since good test scores aren't what learning should be about, in my view). In theory, I support merit pay; in practice, the logistics seem tricky.
Posted by: Isabel | Jul 9, 2007 1:08:41 PM
"Why would a talented, dedicated and educated young worker become a teacher, with the already low pay for teachers, if you removed the job security?"
Is this a bigger stumbling block or entry-barrier to incoming teachers than a pay-scale based on seniority/pensions? Free-agents have leverage too... if you're a rising star and not being compensated, you can take your services elsewhere, no? It's not as if there's a shortage of demand. (And yes, this assumes good principals of high integrity.)
Recruitment and retention are the #1 issues in education. I'm not sure if they align with the #1 priority of most unions.
Posted by: Jon | Jul 9, 2007 1:15:38 PM
"Cranky" is absolutely right. Merit pay that is simply a discretionary award for a perceived "job well done" will rapidly devolve into a system where principals reward those who are their favorites. Such a system will not only fail to improve schools, it will harm morale.
I do not have a problem with a system of paying more to high level science and math teachers if that is what is necessary to attract such people to teaching. I don't think most unions would have a problem with this either if it was based on a formalized change to pay schedules rather than a discretionary decision exercised solely by management.
The notion that firing teachers is impossible is just myth. What people are objecting to is a just cause standard for firing. Again, you eliminate this and you leave such decisions to managment fiat, something that is inherently subject to abuse.
Finally, the idea that the problems that we have in public schools is primarily the result of incompetent teaching is ludicrous. Far more of the difficulties stem from issues of parenting, poverty, and problems in the broader society in general than from bad teachers.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jul 9, 2007 1:27:24 PM
No Sam, instead it's a mechanism to ensure that the schools with the highest income (in other words, schools in wealthy districts) get only good teachers, while everyone else gets slop. Similar to the way college entrance criteria is used to game the system in favor of higher-income students.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 9, 2007 1:29:54 PM
"And while I'm pretty firmly in favor of such policies, it's also not the case that merit pay has sparked a miracle revitalization in any school districts."
Isn't it true that most such programs have not been in effect for many years? It seems to me it may be 10 or 20 years before we have enough information to see if various merit pay programs have positive impact. For instance, the Denver ProComp plan didn't require teachers in the school system at the time it was implemented to participate. This means it will be years until significant numbers of teachers are really subject to the system.
I hoped it would also go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, that anyone who expects a single reform such as merit pay to result in "miracle revitalization" is not a serious commentator. And anyone who holds proponents of such reforms to a standard of achieving miracles is disingenuous.
Posted by: Lukeness | Jul 9, 2007 1:32:02 PM
The bottom line is you get what you pay for.
Even if you could wave a magic wand and miraculously figure out who all the lousy teachers are and fire them who do you think you are going to hire to replace them?
Posted by: Eric | Jul 9, 2007 1:53:24 PM
The real problem with merit pay is --- tracked classes. If you want your merit pay, you go to teach the gifted/talented/advanced kids. You can be the world's crappiest teacher, screwing these gifted kids out of a great education -- and they'll still make A's, ace the standardized tests, and get you that cash.
Meanwhile, the greatest teacher in the world could be helping slow or disabled kids, doing an amazing and undeniable job of getting them ready for adulthood -- and get the shaft.
Posted by: Morat | Jul 9, 2007 2:06:26 PM
Soullite,
Given that one of the pieces of my idea is the ability to pay teachers more for teaching in "harder" schools (more special needs, more low-income, poorer teacher retention), how would this "ensure that the schools with the highest income (in other words, schools in wealthy districts) get only good teachers, while everyone else gets slop"?
Posted by: SamChevre | Jul 9, 2007 2:10:36 PM
As I recall, Kerry had a brilliant way of conceptualizing the merit pay proposal in a way that the unions simply couldn't say no to, even if they wanted to. It was like "free federal money for your teachers, as long as you agree to distribute it in the merit-based way we want you to!" Any union that said no would basically be saying no to free money for its members.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 9, 2007 2:14:52 PM
I mean, look, the devil is in the details. How is merit determined? I teach special ed for a public school in a (separate population) program for kids with severe emotional disturbance. I can't imagine a incentive system that could accurately and fairly assess teacher merit given the idiosyncratic nature of these kid's conditions. Even outside of my (admittedly extreme) situation, how do you know what teacher is performing exceptionally well? Obviously you can't simply judge it based on the straight academic performance of a given teacher's class. Maybe the change in grades from one year to the next? Do you reward it based on aggregate increase in grade scores, or the percentage change in a given students grades? Do you use standardized testing? The deficiencies in using standardized testing to measure teacher performance are well known. What about the kid who starts at an A level and maintains an A level? Does his performance rate higher than a kid who maintains a B?
Also, I'd like to point out that there are some problems with misrepresentation and outright manipulation of academic data in private schools-- there is simply too much economic incentive to do so for the schools. Similarly, it seems to me that you'd be inviting corruption if you are going to be changing the pay scale for teachers based on student performance, particularly if the merit system is widespread.
Posted by: Freddie | Jul 9, 2007 2:27:14 PM
SamChevre,
Part of the problem is that we need incentives to get people to teach in lower performing schools in the first place. I agree with with the idea of using incentives to improve struggling schools, but without changing to a funding system that is heavily dependent on property taxes, more affluent districts will tend to have a better pool of teachers from which to choose. Also, unless you are talking about moving to state-wide pay scales for public schools, wealthier schools will still be able to pay better wages to attract better candidates.
I have a harder time accepting paying math and science teachers more simply because of their area of study. I am all for attracting better people to the teaching profession, but singling out science and math for higher pay is problematic.
Posted by: jmack | Jul 9, 2007 2:48:50 PM
singling out science and math for higher pay is problematic.
Problematic how? For starters, there are fewer math and science teachers available than there are English teachers. When there's a shortage of applicants available in a given profession, it makes sense to offer more money to attract more and better candidates.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 9, 2007 3:08:28 PM
"The real problem with merit pay is --- tracked classes. If you want your merit pay, you go to teach the gifted/talented/advanced kids."
Denver's plan at least tries to address this problem with pay incentives to teach in low performing schools and difficult positions. And this plan is part of a union contract.
Posted by: Lukeness | Jul 9, 2007 3:19:01 PM
I actually think one of the more ingenious ideas proposed during the 2004 election came from Dick Gephardt. His idea of creating a teacher "ROTC" program where we pay for college/forgive loans for students who become teachers and agree to work in lower performing/low income schools for a certain period of time is a great way to get both more teachers and better teachers. Not to mention it helps place good teachers in areas of need
Posted by: Phil | Jul 9, 2007 4:00:48 PM
The problem with education reform, and most policy ideas lately, is that we are all waiting for a magic wand solution to make everything better. Democrats come up with an idea and then republicans pick it apart. Republicans come up with an idea and then democrats pick it apart. No plan is perfect, but it's our obligation to create a plan and make it work because its the right thing to do.
Posted by: Phil | Jul 9, 2007 4:10:01 PM
"Kaus is always saying that it needs to be easier to fire teachers. But that job security is an incentive to be a teacher."
Unless something has changed around where I live, which is Long Island, or unless things are radically different in other parts of the country, you don't get tenure right away. So if we are experiencing an unprecedented level of bad teachers in our school systems, my question is, how did they get tenure in the first place?
But then, were you referring to job security as in tenure, or merely having a union when so many professions don't?
Posted by: Brian | Jul 9, 2007 4:16:50 PM
Good grief you guys are a bunch of liberal double-speakers.
When it comes to doctors, you are all for "merit pay" and "pay for performance" standards but when it comes to teachers you abandon your own logic and bend over backwards to make excuses as to why it wont work.
What a freaking joke.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 9, 2007 5:11:02 PM
P.S. The USA spends more money on education than anywhere else in the world, yet our outcomes are the worst of any industrialized nation.
Does that rhetoric sound familiar to you? It should because thats the argument you use against healthcare time and time again. Yet all of you want to INCREASE SPENDING on education. Please explain that logic to me.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 9, 2007 5:12:05 PM
I think one of the problems with this discussion is that we are confusing two different goals of "merit pay." Some posters seem to think its goal is to increase the pool of talented teachers, esp. in urban areas. Two things about this. One, you can increase pay in cities relative to other areas without making it merit-based. Second, I have a hard time believing there is the political will out there to pour enough new dollars into public education to significantly expand the pool of potential teachers.
Other posters seem to think we need merit pay to separate the wheat from the chaff among current teachers - get rid of the deadwood, to mix my metaphor. Or, to put it another way, the idea is to get current teachers to perform better with the carrot of higher pay or a bonus. I have three issues with this. First, I don't think most current teachers are holding back any reservoir of talent waiting for a $2000 bonus or 2% pay differential to be dangled in front of them. The good ones are doing well, the bad ones not. Second, forcing out the current crop ofbad teachers assumes there is a ready pool of better qualified replacements. See above. Finally, we don't need merit pay to encourage the deadwood to leave. What we need is tenure reform. Contrary to some posts above, in most states it is very difficult to remove a tenured teacher. Simply being burned out, resistant to new teaching methods or any similar reduction in productivity that would result in being shown the door in the private sector simply will not cut it.
Personally, I think merit pay is one of those "feel good" market-type solutions that will only divert money from more productive reforms.
Posted by: mert7878 | Jul 9, 2007 5:23:51 PM
When it comes to doctors, you are all for "merit pay" and "pay for performance" standards but when it comes to teachers you abandon your own logic and bend over backwards to make excuses as to why it wont work.
First of all, if you can link to a blog post or article that actually uses the phrases "merit pay" or "pay for performance" in a discussion on health care, I'll be very surprised. I've never encountered those terms in a health care discussion before.
Second of all, genius-- the problems in American heath care and American education are almost entirely unrelated. The problem with healthcare is that we have quality, by and large, but inadequate coverage. The problem with education is that we have universal coverage but not a consistent standard of quality-- although the knee-jerk notion that American public education stinks is just asserted over and over again, without evidence. One of the problems that people perceive in education-- the problem that Enza is talking about-- is a lack of quality teachers. There is no similar problem with a lack of quality doctors. The problem is providing the resources to the people who cannot afford to use those doctors. Perhaps if there was some great deficit in the number of quality doctors out there, we would need to create a new incentive system. But there isn't and we don't.
Posted by: Freddie | Jul 9, 2007 5:39:33 PM
although the knee-jerk notion that American public education stinks is just asserted over and over again, without evidence."
Wrong. Every single study of industrialized nations shows our elementary, middle, and high school students are the worst of the bunch.
There's no mistake about it. We pay the most of any nation in the world for education and we get shit results for the effort.
Teachers unions are part, but not all of the problem.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 9, 2007 6:58:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
