The Valley Independent (PA) disapproves of the idea of merit pay for teachers:
It is a good thing that a proposed incentive pay program for high-performing teachers likely would be barred by collective bargaining agreements. That's because the incentive pay plan - a $500 million proposal backed by the Bush administration - is a bad idea.
While the concept of better teaching is attractive because it would benefit students, the idea that it could be driven by money is misguided. Teachers are supposed to give all they have all the time. They are being paid to do so. And an extra $10,000 a year is not going to transform a poor teacher into an excellent educator.
Emphasis mine. Wow. Are they serious? Has the idea that teachers do what they do purely of love for the profession, with no thought whatsoever to the practicalities and necessities of life, become this thoroughly ingrained? That someone could say with a straight face that a job this demanding doesn't deserve better pay? And that a teacher who "gives her all" but yet doesn't teach well deserves as much money as one who actually educates her students?
On the other hand, this type of thinking certainly reflects the "effort matters more than results" and "anyone who loves teaching should be allowed to teach" theories that infest our school systems.
The incentive program would lead to discord. School officials would be hard-pressed to establish effective systems for rating high performance. It certainly could not be based on test scores. Students, in terms of academic performance, are not formed from a single mold. Their skills and individual abilities to learn vary widely.
And test scores can't reflect those individual abilities because? Actually, I'm betting the author of this editorial knows quite well that those students with highly individual learning abilities may not be learning a lot, and tests make it difficult for administrators to ignore that.
Some educators work wonders with students who have little academic potential. They bring out the best out in students who might founder under the tutelage of some lesser educator. Likewise, some educators might strain to properly mentor high-achievers.
But those teachers who do so much and work so hard don't deserve extra money because that might cause "discord"? As in, other teachers who don't do as much shouldn't be made to feel bad?
If there is an extra half-billion sitting around, the Bush administration should turn it over to public school systems. In the hands of local school boards and administrators, the money could be spent to best benefit students.
Oh, yes, I'm sure that would happen. Pardon me for being skeptical.
Most teachers out there are working as hard as they can to educate their youthful charges. An extra 10 grand would not make them work more diligently. As for those rare teachers who just put in time and collect paychecks, financial incentives are not going to inspire them to do better.
An extra 10 grand would make the life of a teacher a heck of a lot easier, though. And why isn't anyone worried about the "self-esteem" of good teachers, here, who would benefit quite a bit psychologically from that pay boost? Besides, we've all known great teachers who spent their own money on educational supplies; with 10 grand, they can buy even more.
It's absurd to assume that giving extra money to teachers results in no educational benefits whatsoever, and this editorial is just another example of the "no teacher is worth more than another" mindset that drives good teachers away from our classrooms.
Posted by kswygert at November 15, 2004 02:44 PM