Menu

Argument: Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers

Issue Report: Merit pay for teachers

Support

Darcy Ann Olsen. “Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay”. CATO. May 22, 2001: “Teachers need more money, according to a new survey by the American Federation of Teachers. Noting that teacher salaries last year climbed 3.2 percent, or 0.2 percent less than inflation, AFT president Sandra Feldman said, “Salaries must at least become competitive to attract and keep quality teachers.”

But at $42,000, the average teacher’s salary is not bad, particularly for a job with a three-month summer vacation. Still, the union’s pleas for higher pay are not surprising. After all, unions exist in part to negotiate higher wages. But U.S. Department of Education data show teacher salaries have increased steadily over the past 20 years, while student achievement has steadily declined. This raises the question: If students are learning less, should teachers be getting paid more?

Like the rest of us, if teachers want higher salaries, they should earn them. Don’t get me wrong: Millions of talented teachers across the country are “earning” those higher salaries through their skilled and dedicated work. But union rules prevent them from getting paid for it.

Unions have long insisted on uniform pay scales based almost exclusively on degrees earned and years on the job. All the while, a teacher’s most important job–teaching–goes unmeasured and unrewarded. When a teacher who can’t teach simple addition not only doesn’t get fired but actually gets paid the same as the “Teacher of the Year,” is it any wonder many of the most talented teachers are leaving the profession?”

“Researcher says merit-based US system better at attracting talent”. Deutsche Welle. May 18, 2009: “After 23 years of research in the USA, which he put an end to after teaching materials science at the University of California in Berkeley, Professor Eicke Weber finally came home to Germany. On July 1, 2006, the physicist and materials researcher became director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE in Freiburg, southern Germany.

What shaped your decision to come back to Germany after working in the US as a researcher for over two decades?

The United States is a unique place worldwide because it is attractive for people from around the world for active and energetic people and of course for scientists who are looking for excellent working conditions. The United States therefore really attracts the best scientists from around the world.

The universities in the US offer many attractive positions. They offer a level playing field to compete for funds for research. The result is that competition is much tougher than, say, in Germany. But those who continuously have good ideas and stay ahead of the others have good opportunities. On the other hand, this “brain drain” isn’t good for other countries. That means that Europe and Asia have to make sure they create attractive conditions for people to come back to.

The kind of institute I came back to — Fraunhofer — is a very special government laboratory because it is a government-sponsored institute, but basically it has to earn its money through its own success. In my institute, basic funding from the government is down to 10 percent — that means 90 percent is based on our success in bringing in projects, half from industry and half from government sources. This creates a competitive atmosphere, [which] I liked so much while working in the US. I must say I was very happy to have this opportunity to come back to.”

Daniel Henninger. “Wonder Land”. The Wall Street Journal. October 14, 2005.: “At his offices in the capitol building, Director James calls himself an ‘advocate of pay for performance’ for a couple of reasons. Financial incentives of some sort are needed, he says, to stop math and science teachers from jumping ship to industry. And school districts like Little Rock’s have to innovate fast because jobs and population are migrating internally, mostly into northwestern Arkansas. The Springdale district alone, he says, near Fayetteville and Bentonville, ‘hired 180 new teachers this year.’ Little Rock has to find a way to hold its best teachers. The teachers I saw at Meadowcliff Elementary seemed pretty happy to be there.”

Beth Lewis. “Pros and Cons of Merit Pay For Teachers”. About.com: Merit Pay programs will help recruit and retain the nation’s brightest minds. It’s the odd teacher who hasn’t considered leaving the classroom and entering the corporate workplace for the twin benefits of less hassle and more money potential. Particularly intelligent and effective teachers might reconsider leaving the profession if they felt that their extraordinary efforts were being recognized in their paychecks.

Matthew Springer, director of the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn: “The single most important [in-school] determinant of a student’s success in the classroom is the teacher. Yet the ways in which we compensate teachers – years of experience and degrees held – are not strongly correlated with student achievement gains…. That’s driving some advocates [of compensation changes] to say there must be a better way.”[1]

Phil Gonring, a program officer at the Rose Community Foundation in Denver who was heavily involved in ProComp, one of America’s longest-lived performance pay programs: “Teachers are going to get paid a lot more under these performance-pay plans. What we’ll see is a transformation in the labor market. It’s going to become more economically viable for young people to come into the profession and stay for a good period of time. The No. 1 education issue is human capital management. And money plays a huge role in getting people to stay.”[2]