Merit pay for teachers doesn't work. Now what?

Post date: May 15, 2013 1:6:47 AM

A question was raised at Monday night’s debate on how the candidates would propose to reward the outstanding teachers in the district.

As I reflect on the responses of the candidates, my years of experience as a manager tell me that the majority of the proposed solutions would be ineffective at best, and de-motivational at worst. For instance, selecting individual teachers for awards may give a temporary ego boost to that one teacher, but effectively tell the remaining faculty that they are inferior. Further, it can potentially create competition between faculty members. Such competition is detrimental to the collaborative teaching process which is so effective and which we wish to foster.

Reflecting on my experiences, employees are effectively motivated not through awards and ribbons, but rather through the knowledge that their contribution is valued and that their professional competence and opinions are respected. Furthermore, research consistently shows that money alone is a poor motivator: Merit pay systems have consistently failed in educational environments. Employees consistently value the quality of the work environment over small changes in their paycheck. Creating an environment where employees feel authentically cared for, valued, and respected is a far more effective motivator than cash.

Consider now that we spend thousands of dollars bringing in outside contractors to do professional development, with limited understanding of their effectiveness with faculty. In the meantime, we are ignoring the significant expertise of our master teachers -- effectively telling them than their gifts and their mastery are unimportant, and of no value to the district. We dismiss their years of experience, their knowledge of our children, and their understanding of our community. As a manager I know that this is a recipe for low morale, a de-motivated staff, and poor performance. A token award at the end of the year or a small amount of merit pay cannot fix this!

It was suggested that teachers should mentor other teachers as part of their general professional responsibilities. Teachers in Croton do an excellent job working collaboratively, as it is an effective educational tool - but mentoring is a time consuming process, and is effectively the same as taking on an entirely new teaching responsibility, with the attendant time commitment and required preparation.

It seems to me, though, that there is opportunity here. Think back to the money that we pay to private contractors for professional development services. Most of these contractors have no connection to our community, our children, or our schools.

What if instead of paying outside contractors, we acknowledged our master teachers by offering them the opportunity to get paid for providing expert professional development services to their peers. They would bring their inherent knowledge of our programs, their connection with our children, as well as their knowledge of the teaching styles and varying expertise of their colleagues to the table. They could create collaborative relationships based upon mutual respect and a shared desire to become better teachers together.

Interestingly, this was once standard practice in the Croton-Harmon Schools but was abandoned for reasons unknown. Also, there is precedent, in that we already pay stipends to teachers who contribute to the district in time and commitment beyond their regular duties.

The advantage of this approach is that it can be done at no additional cost to the district, and may even save some expense. It acknowledges the truly skillful among our faculty, and it further enhances collegial and collaborative relationships. It builds morale, and creates an environment where our master teachers’ skills are visibly valued, and where all of our teachers are focused on growing better together.