Sarah Lee is a third grade teacher in a public school. She is known for her constant smile and also winning multiple “teacher of the year” awards. Mrs. Lee has been teaching for over twenty years and any child would be extremely lucky to have her as a teacher. Not only is she an amazing educator, but she also has a master’s in education and is approaching a PhD. In Sarah’s twenty third year of teaching she is faced with a great majority of students that suffer from test anxiety. When the standardized testing came around, most of Mrs. Lee’s children did horribly. Her children were doing so well on in class assessments but the stress of what they see as a “big test” gave them anxiety. A new salary system had been established in her district and because of it, she received a salary decrease. This hard working teacher who had proved her worth by the amount of years she had taught and the amount of awards she had received was being punished because some of her students did bad on a standardized test. This new system that has caused Sarah a drastic salary decrease is called merit pay. Merit pay is paying educators based on his or her performance in the classroom and the merit pay system uses test scores as a judge of a child’s performance in the classroom. Like the majority of children in Mrs. Lee’s classroom, kids can easily suffer from test anxiety or struggle taking tests. Educators that work hard and put most of their time and effort into teaching should not suffer lower wages based on test scores. Merit pay is a bad idea in the education system for this reason and countless others. 

The current salary system in most school districts pays educators based on years of experience and amount of education earned. Merit pay supports love to argue that just because a teacher has a great deal of experience does not mean they are better educators than first year teachers. An economist Raj Chetty of Harvard found that students who are placed with more experienced teachers not only perform better on test but are also more likely to go to college. Experience in the classroom is a luxury (Manno). You learn more and more about teaching each year, and just like most things in life “practice makes perfect.” The amount of education you earn can also affect your abilities as a teacher. Each education course teaches you some type of skill that will better you as an educator. This extra time at a University or College allows you to learn more classroom management skills, new techniques, and many other things that those who gain a bachelor’s degree do not have the opportunity to learn. This basic salary system focuses on two very relevant factors that should be rewarded.

Standardized testing has become a huge focus in the past decade. Since George Bush implemented the No Child Left Behind initiative, the United States piled on the standardized testing. These test scores have become the judge of student and teacher success. The National Education Association does not believe that test scores offer an accurate assessment. They believe that the factors of the basic salary system for teachers are the only factors that truly judge the quality of a teacher (Manno). How can the salary of teachers be based on test scores if one of the largest teacher unions does not believe that they are an accurate assessment? It does not make much sense and further proves why merit pay is a bad idea. Stemming off from this, any educator will confess that your students will vary widely from year to year (Rameriz). A teacher could have a group of outstanding students who all make A’s or B’s and work hard on every assignment one year and then have a group of kids who struggle on tests and could care less about school the next. Teachers cannot control the type of children that are placed in their classroom. Because of this, a teacher salary would be unpredictable from year to year and could possibly cause teachers to fully blame their students for this problem. 

Many educators believe that our nation focuses too much on standardized test and test prep. If we adopt a salary system that pays teachers based on their students’ test scores, this will drastically increase the amount of standardized testing and test prep. Not only are standardized testing non-effective but they also take up a large amount of time and money (“Trying Teacher Salary...”). The time spent preparing for a standardized test could be time used to actually teach students a new skill or help them better a skill they already possess. Testing is very expensive and school systems are already spending way too much money on standardized testing. Establishing a merit pay system would also increase the importance of the test results. Those test results would determine the teacher’s salary which adds a huge amount of pressure on the teacher and student. The merit pay system would draw more importance on standardized testing (which is unnecessary) and also take a lot of time and money.

Bill Raabe, the National Education Association’s director of Collective Bargaining and Member Benefits, stated “We must all be wary of any system that creates a climate where students are viewed as part of the pay equation, rather than young people who deserve a high quality of education that prepares them for their future.” This quote speaks volumes. If schools inherited the merit pay salary system, they would be placing the fate of teachers’ salary in the hands of innocent children. These kids should not have to deal with that responsibility. They should only be focused on learning and doing their personal best in the classroom. Not only will this new system place pressure on the children but it could also cause tension between educators. If there is a quota for merit increases, teachers could be pit against one another. Arthur H. Camins says “Merit pay systems tend to foster secrecy and competition among educators, rather than collegial learning and mutual improvement. Kathy Boudreau, the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, stated “If I’m a great teacher with great practices, I might think, ‘Why would I want to share?’” Ms. Boudreau makes a great point and this shows that the unhealthy competition formed between educators could potentially harm the success and improvement in schools. Not only would it slow the growth of schools but it would completely diminish collaboration between teachers. Merit pay will put pressure on students and cause unhealthy competition and no collaboration between educators (Rosales).

Nick Morrison, a contributor on Forbes’ website, wrote an article titled “Merit Pay for Teachers is Only Fair.” In this article, Morrison mentions several times that merit pay has not been proven successful. Nick Morrison states that “performance will not just be measured by exam results.” He lists several other options to judge performance on, such as lesson observations and contribution to the school. One teacher was even quoted saying “For the additional hours most of us put into projects, meetings, planning, and parent workshops, the pay is a positive reinforcement” (Drevitch). What if the man or woman observing your lesson judges you unfairly or shows bias towards a certain educator? And how can you expect a teacher who has three kids at home to offer just as much extra time as a first year teacher with no one but themselves to look out for (Morrison)? Supporters of merit pay hope that the change in the system will cause less-effective teachers to improve their teaching or even help the education system gain more talented people. While those are two very positive benefits, evidence shows that the merit pay system would only cause short term gains and people would begin to work the system in unethical ways. While these counter arguments make stable points, there are too many loop holes that still make merit pay a bad idea.

Another major issue that has been heavily debated is the idea of evaluations having a part in your salary. Meaning, an administrator would enter your classroom and evaluate the way you teach your students, choosing whether you deserve or do not deserve a raise. The Massachusetts Teachers Association has decided to oppose merit pay because it relies on individual test scores and potentially subjective teacher evaluations. The president of the union, Kathy Boudreau, asks “What if my principal happens to like me, and happens to dislike you?” (Drevitch) Mrs. Boudreau makes a great point. In the public school system, it is not uncommon for principals to have teachers they favor over others. Society would hope that the administrators could see past their bias’s and make all the right calls, but that is not always the case. Not only could administrators favor the teachers they like more, but they could also be too strict or too lenient on the teachers as a whole. In the same district from one elementary school to the next, teachers who are better teachers could be payed less than average teachers because their principal is extremely strict. All in all, there is no way to fairly evaluate the way a teacher teaches in order to decide part of their salary. Ben Johnson, an administrator, author, and educator, believes that merit pay makes sense. He said “the lack of fairness was always brought up as an excuse” (Johnson). How can this be an excuse when valid facts are behind it? There is no way to send the same evaluator around to each and every school in the country and it is also impossible to find an evaluator who will have no biases towards any school or educator. The unfairness behind evaluations is not an “excuse”; it is an extremely valid point.

Another major issue that makes merit pay a bad idea is the cost. It is very expensive to implement a merit pay system. In small town school districts, such as Chesterfield County, South Carolina, functions are constrained by a budget. Al Ramirez makes a great connection between baseball and the education system under merit pay. An organization as big as the New York Yankees cannot afford to have nine superstar players all at once because they do not have the money to pay all nine of the superstars. If those “superstar” teachers stay excellent year after year they will gain most of the money and leave the decent teachers with whatever is left. If the education systems were not set up by a budget, this system may be more effective. Not only does the budgeting make merit pay an impossible financial venture, but it is very risky. Ramirez states “If the overall salary schedule declines in order to fund a merit pay plan, the district become less competitive with neighboring school districts…” While this may not seem like a big deal, it can cause current employees to flee from their current district and it can also cause new teachers to be less attracted to that school district (Ramirez). In Florida, they tried the merit pay system. While it did jump test scores by eleven points, one of the counties in Florida ran out of money to pay the teacher’s salary. The United States is currently in a recession and because of this, no matter how appealing merit pay for educators may seem, it is a bad and impossible idea financially (NBCActionNews).

Many merit pay supports think that the new system will attract strong teachers. It is logical to say “that performance pay will help school systems attract and retain strong teachers, while discouraging weaker ones.” But this is not very likely. Most current and future educators will say that they did not decide to become involved in education because of the money. They became an educator to inspire and help children and to be surrounded by others who have the same passion they do. Teachers want a healthy environment where they can turn to their colleagues for help and can also collaborate with if needed. In a merit pay system, this companionship will be jeopardized. Any strong teacher who has pure and true intentions would not want to enter a school that ran on a salary system that encourages competition between coworkers (“Trying Teachers Salary…”).

Instead of adopting such a controversial salary system such as merit pay, school districts should look at other ways to better the salary system for educators. In Portland, Maine they have operated under a Professional Learning Based Salary System (PLBSS). There are five salary lanes based on the earning of salary contact hours. These salary contact hours include working on district committees, leading student activities, and taking college courses. The leader of Portland’s Education Association stated “A high quality teacher is the most important factor in student learning.” This salary system has much less quirks and no longer relies on test scores or teacher evaluation (Rosales).

In Helena, Montana they have established a similar salary system, the Professional Compensation Alternative Plan. Larry Nielsen, former president of the Helena Education Association, stated “if you invest the money up front in professional development, it has been proven that student achievement will improve.” While many teachers are resistant to the merit pay system, this plan received immediate support. When teachers in Helena were given the choice between traditional salary and the Professional Compensation Alternative Plan, they agreed with the new plan. The criteria of this plan includes three things: The Career Development Plan, Professional Service Commitment, and Positive Evaluation. The Career Development Plan was written by educators and is found in the motto “professionals helping professionals to be better professionals.” Professional Service Commitment is the teachers agreeing to do activities that help the schools or district but are activities that they do not receive compensation for. And finally, positive evaluation. There are two parts to the final step. First is professional growth. This involves the administrator and educator getting together and writing a plan for the educators own professional growth. Second is the check-out stage. This just involves the administrator evaluating the teacher and not judging her abilities but checking off goals that the educators has reached. At the end of the year, the administrator and teacher meet and if the teacher met their own personal goals, they advance. This plan does not involve unfair evaluations or test scores and it allows teachers to form personal goals and collaborate with their administrators (Rosales).

Merit pay is a very controversial issue with many different flaws. Whether you agree with merit pay or not, it is hard to ignore the fact that there are very few cases of success. It has so many obvious problems such as unfair evaluations, unhealthy competition between teachers, and the main problem: basing a teacher’s salary on individual test scores. There are other salary systems that have proven to be successful and have not been as problematic. In conclusion, merit pay is a bad idea for the education system and school districts need to work together to find another way to fix teacher salary. 
