Teaching is a rewarding profession regardless of the amount of money earned.  However, many people believe that educators should receive bonuses based on their effectiveness. A system of rewards based on performance is merit based pay.  Merit based pay has been implemented in schools throughout history since the beginning of formal education.  Countless examples across the world in places like Florida, New York, and England show merit based pay systems failing.  In 1983, a Gallup Poll reported that 61 percent of the country’s adults support merit based pay (Johnson 176).  Since 2007, there have been twenty-eight states that have introduced legislation that would rid the education system of the traditional pay process and implement a form of merit based pay.  Educators should not receive merit pay.  The system does not adequately measure the effectiveness of teachers, allow for students to master skills, and does not benefit the school or the community economically. 

Since the beginning of formal education, merit based pay has been a topic of discussion across the world. The idea behind merit based pay is that if teachers are paid competitively based on performance, as a result they will work harder in the classroom. The goal of the program is to encourage educators who are doing well, and weed out those who are not.  In the 1920’s a man by the name of Lloyd Young began studying schools that were running on merit pay salaries.  Even during the 1920’s, school personnel said that because no scientific instrument has been developed to measure the various degrees of teaching efficiency, merit pay “hampers a teacher’s work and prevents the expression of individuality (Johnson 178).”  In turn, Johnson believes that the application of merit pay “destroys the esprit de corps of the teaching force” and does not reward educators on reasonable terms (Johnson pg. 178).”  Over the years, however; merit pay lost its support from 1935-1955.  Teachers began demanding higher salaries and were fearful the quality of education was low.  The demand for merit pay was accepted again as the world geared up for the space race, merit pay reemerged because of the invention of Sputnik and by 1960 “10 percent of the United States school districts had merit pay plans in place (Murnane and Cohen pg. 5).”   Like the trends show, merit pay effectiveness dropped to 4.5% by the early 1970’s (Johnson pg. 180).”   President Reagan argued that teachers should in fact receive pay based on their merit. Yet again, “Merit pay for public school teachers suddenly became the “all-American answer to a serious problem when President Reagan spoke at Seton Hall University (Johnson pg. 175).” In more recent years, former President Barack Obama believed merit based pay for teachers was the answer to issues in the American education system and said that “we can’t afford to let these issues continue (Murnane and Cohen pg. 8).”  It is easy to see that merit based pay plans have been tried many times and have ultimately failed over and over again.  From these examples it can be stated that merit based pay programs are more likely to create issues rather than add to collegiality and collaboration among teachers.  The challenges of merit based pay have not changed regardless of the new age of technology and education.  Issues that were prevalent throughout the last 100 years are still affecting teaching today. 

Many variables go into affecting the environment of a classroom.  The test scores of students do not accurately measure the different variables within that classroom. Studies across the globe give us insight into how merit based pay programs affect schools and students. A study in New York, reported by Julie Marsh, shows how merit based pay worked over three years.  In the study, the program distributed more than fifty million dollars in bonuses over the course of three years(Marsh pg. xix). Although the program seemed to fulfill its goal by the amount of bonuses given, “over the three years the SPBP (Schoolwide Performance Bonuses Program) had no effects on school progress reports (Marsh pg. xix).”  Specifically the Schoolwide Performance Bonuses Program had no significant effects even though the teachers met the standards used to determine bonuses.  If teachers are being rewarded for effective teaching, why isn’t there a change in the overall performance of students?  Marsh claims that the issues with the New York assessments shed light on the limitations of using test scores as standards for effective teaching (Marsh pg. 229).  Even in this study, Julie Marsh claims that test scores are not accurate measurements of effective teaching.  In an Education Week letter to the editor, Tanya Fletcher a music educator, asks multiple questions regarding merit based pay.  “How will student and teacher attendance rates affect merit pay?, How does one handle the issues of teacher competition that may be associated with merit pay?, and How do district demographics impact merit pay for teachers? (Fletcher pg. 20).”  Fletcher argues that there are numerous variables that go into effective teaching and learning for that matter (Fletcher pg. 20).  The factors that contribute to the daily classroom environment like demographics, learning disabilities, home lives, and many more can not accurately be measured within the test scores of students.  Therefore, teachers may be receiving or not receiving pay inaccurately.  

Not only are test scores an issue for analyzing effective teaching, but there is also “little evidence that teachers respond to payment through results and allocate their time to specific subject areas(Cohen and Murnane pg. 10).”  In fact, there has been studies done that show where educators have removed certain criteria from the curriculum in order to “exclude all non mastered skills (Cohen and Murnane pg. 11).”  If education is centered around providing students with the opportunity to reach their full potential, the education system is failing by cutting out material in order to reach the goals of ‘effective teaching’.  Removing materials from students curriculum not only hinders the reward process but also hinders the student’s ability to be well rounded and diverse in multiple subject areas.  Teachers should be working towards making their students leaders for future generations, to do that, they must have all the knowledge possible.      

Standard salary scales that are used in most educational settings exclusively determine salaries by the credentials educators have and the number of years they have acquired while teaching.  Throughout the college journey, the goal is to gain as much experience as possible, not only to be knowledgeable, but to also rise in pay grades.  However, the “new style merit pay” is based on student’s test scores and not supervisor's reflections of the educators themselves, says Cohen and Murnane.  It is argued that this specific type of pay program works best when the “contribution of the individual worker’s input can be measured (Cohen and Murnane pg. 9).”  The merit based pay system fails in regards to measuring the individual's input because there is no way to decipher what is influencing the student, whether it be one specific teacher, many, or not even a teacher at all.  Throughout copious amounts of research it has been proven that most attempts to implement merit pay for public school teachers have failed (Cohen and Murnane pg. 3).  Yet, researchers argue that in order to attract more capable persons into the profession of teaching, salaries must be raised (Ballou pg. 3).  This trend was unanimous throughout different studies regarding merit based pay.  Dale Ballou argues that the debate over teacher salaries has become more and more acrimonious over the years.  41 Action News explains that in 2012, Florida implemented merit based pay where 60% of bonuses were given based on test scores.  South Carolina Department of Education decided 30% of art teacher's’ pay will be based on the standardized test scores of their school’s students (Coalition of Revolutionary Educators).  Even though there is a  push for merit based pay programs, 41 Action News reports that “plans have been universally opposed by teacher unions.”   Not only have these plans been opposed by teachers across the nation, but the funds for these programs are inadequate.  In Florida, after a merit based pay plan was in place, teachers began to receive bonuses.  Soon after, the county in which the schools resided in ran out of money allocated for these programs (41 Action News).  Sure, the programs may work for some, but there is evidence to show that these programs do not benefit the economy for the surrounding areas.  Whether or not there is a desire for merit pay programs across the globe, there is still no evidence that supports these programs effectively impacting the education of students.    

So what happens once these programs are implemented in schools?  As shown in many studies, most of these programs fail after a few years.  In regards to the study done by Julie Marsh concerning New York schools, after three years the program was discontinued due to the lack of effect on student and teacher performance.  Before the program was halted, it was suspended due to funding and ineffectiveness (Otterman).  These results add to the growing amount of evidence that show the only outcome of these programs is the financial benefits for teachers. Otterman writes that educators claim “improving as teachers and seeing their students learn were bigger motivations” rather than any financial rewards thrown their way.  These merit based pay programs fall short of reaching their goal of raising student test scores and retaining quality teachers.  Merit based pay programs do not affect overall test scores and also make it harder for teachers to reach their personal goals as well as the standard goals for the curriculum.  

Although merit based pay may not work for teachers and schools as a whole, there are other ways to implement rewards for teaching. Instead of rewarding based on merit, districts should reward based on teacher attendance, graduation rates, behavior accomplishments, and an average wellness of a school’s environment.  In many studies, the money used for rewards comes from sources other than taxpayer dollars. Some schools get the money through grants, public-private partnerships, volunteer programs, and outreach activities (Murnane and Cohen pg. 33).”  Since the core of the money comes from outlets like these, schools and districts can reward their teachers, staff, and the community to an extent by rewarding the school as a whole.  If districts reward as a whole, the schools have more funds for supplies, extracurricular activities, after-school programs, daycare programs, and the opportunity to acquire new technology for students.  An administrator of an unknown school believes the money from merit based pay programs ‘creates expectations, memories, and sensitivities that can contribute to improved performance (Murnane and Cohen pg. 34).”  If the reward funds come from the community, teachers will not have to struggle to buy supplies for their classrooms and will not have to worry about acquiring the materials they need throughout the year such as pencils, extra paper, and so forth.  In turn, if the community is donating their money towards rewarding schools, and the staff is being meeting their goals, the districts will be creating a new generation of students equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to change their community and the world they live in.  Rewarding in large numbers and in a non-biased way cuts down on pay measurements, weights, and the competition between teachers.  This also pushes for teachers to really focus on every student as this reward system would not focus on test scores.  Teachers will not be focused on trying to meet standards, rather they will be able to center their attention on every student's’ need.  Sal Khan discusses two topics in his video Let’s teach for mastery--not for test scores: mastery and mindset.  Here, Khan gives a personal example of his cousins who were relatively good at math but began to struggle once the math became more advance.  After working at resources like The Khan Academy, Khan’s cousins and other students understood that they could master math if they put themselves in the correct mindset.  Khan argues that in normal classrooms we test, move on to the next chapter, test, and so on.  Students struggle on these tests and standardized tests because because ofthe previous exams begin to get harder over time and the information begins to build on topics that should have been mastered already.  Mastery learning on the other hand is when and how long a student has to master a skill.  Khan recognizes that the idea of mastery-based learning seems impractical.  Yet, in today’s world the technology students are using cn help to close the gaps that would make mastery-based learning difficult.  The system of districts rewarding schools as a whole based on their mastery-based learning can also work to reward and help students master skills.  For example, the money from private sectors, grants, etc. can be used for technology like previously stated.  This technology can give students the chance to have interactive programs, games, and at home tutoring to help build skills and build on those skills.  Every student works and learns at their own pace like Khan points out and the use of mastery-based learning can bridge the gap for students who fall behind. 

The students in schools today are the future of the world we live in.  As a whole, we must recognize the issues with merit based pay and stop our school systems from making the mistake of implementing these programs.  These programs fail to evaluate effective teaching as effectiveness can not be measured through test scores.  If merit based pay plans are implemented in schools, students will be left behind and pushed to the side as the focus turns to meeting standards for receiving bonuses.  Curriculum gets changed in order to meet these standards for the simple fact of receiving a bonus incentive.   Proven over and over again through multiple studies, merit based pay has no overall effect on the student's grades and therefore is not benefiting the students and accomplishing its goal.  First-hand accounts from teachers show us that they benefit more from the outcome of their students than the pay they receive.  Teachers can benefit at the same time as their students if we implement a mastery-based learning style which works towards students mastering skills at their own pace. Teachers can also benefit if we reward schools as a whole based on their students behavior, charity work, and overall wellness of the school environment.  Schools can receive funds from private businesses, grants, and outreach programs which can be turned into technology, school supplies, and much more to help teachers reach their goal of being effective and to help students get the resources they need in order to be successful in school and throughout life.  The students in the world today can make a difference and change the world only if we give them the best education possible.  Merit based pay does not promise the best education, but through adjustments and compromise, we can create the most effective environment for students to learn in and be successful in.
