Merit-based pay has been in the news lately and is a hugely debated issue. I was initially against it, but after listening to both sides of the argument I have begun to feel more for the other side. Merit-based pay would most likely improve teaching overall for individuals. Most people are motivated by the prospect of a fatter paycheck. If teachers are rated based on their teaching and student performance, then most teachers would feel the need to improve their teaching. Unfortunately, this form of assessment singles teachers out and teaching is, and must continue to be, a cooperative profession.
If teachers were to get paid based on performance, there would need to be a good system in place. This has been difficult, as teachers are most often labeled based on student performance. Student performance is most often assessed using standardized testing. Students all come from different backgrounds, go through different phases in their lives, may or may not have been in the classroom for the entire year, and may or may not be good test takers. Is this assessment really fair to teachers?
A well-rounded system needs to be put in place where teachers can be assessed in multiple ways. This is difficult, as much of teaching is subjective rather than objective and assessments tend to be somewhat unfair.
Student performance based on tests? Student improvement throughout the year? Teacher observations? A combination of these factors and more?
Informative articles on the issue:
http://k6educators.about.com/od/assessmentandtesting/a/meritypay.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-04-08-teachers-pay_N.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment