President Reagan had a meeting with officials from four principal public education organizations last week, marking the first time in his Administration that such a meeting took place. However, what stood out about the meeting was the absence of a representative from the nation’s largest teachers’ union. During the meeting, which lasted an hour and a half, President Reagan and the education officials discussed the state of the American educational system and sought mutual support for reforms, particularly the controversial merit-pay and master-teacher plans aimed at restructuring teacher compensation. The National Education Association (NEA), the union that has opposed these pay reforms and has been criticized by President Reagan, was not invited to the meeting despite promises made to union officials regarding a meeting with the President.
Terrel H. Bell, the Secretary of Education who was also present at the meeting, dismissed any negative implications of excluding union representatives, stating that the intention was to focus on the concept of master-teachers. The NEA spokesperson expressed confusion about their exclusion but expressed confidence in eventually securing a meeting with the President.
The education officials present at the meeting, representing various organizations, including school-board members, state superintendents of education, school administrators, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), agreed to support teacher compensation reforms and planned to address this topic at their annual convention in Los Angeles the following month. Albert Shanker, the president of AFT, expressed the intention to engage in open-minded thinking about the new merit-pay proposals and show the country’s governors a willingness to discuss these proposals. Shanker was among the educators who agreed with President Reagan during the lunch meeting to explore different methods of compensating teachers.
Both union leaders also stated their potential support for the implementation of the Tennessee plan, with certain conditions, though the plan would not be revisited by the state legislature until the following year.
Merit pay is not a new concept in American education and its meaning can vary. It typically involves a monetary stipend awarded to teachers who, based on evaluations, are deemed to be performing exceptionally well. It may be based on classroom performance or student achievement-test scores. Merit pay is usually given as a bonus on top of a teacher’s regular salary. Proponents argue that linking pay to performance motivates teachers to excel and provides an incentive for average teachers to improve. They also claim that it attracts bright and ambitious individuals to the teaching profession and encourages them to stay. Merit-pay supporters criticize the current practice of paying all teachers with the same credentials and experience the same salary, arguing that it lacks these incentives and that teacher salaries are generally too low to attract top talent.
The concept of master teachers is distinct from merit pay. While master teachers may also receive pay raises based on favorable evaluations, the concept involves different incentives and addresses more significant issues in the reward structure of the teaching profession. Under a master-teacher plan, teachers take on additional responsibilities, such as curriculum development, in exchange for substantial pay increases. This effectively grants them promotions, while those receiving merit pay only receive raises. Proponents of the master-teacher concept argue that it offers teachers a career ladder and the opportunity to take on new roles and responsibilities, addressing the repetitive nature of their work. Additionally, master-teacher plans often involve collaboration with less-experienced colleagues, fostering greater collegiality in a profession that is typically characterized by isolation within individual classrooms.
‘Rewarding Performance’
The Houston Independent School District has implemented a unique pay structure for teachers referred to as "incentive pay." Unlike merit-based pay and master-teacher concepts, incentive pay plans typically do not involve evaluating a teacher’s work. Instead, they often utilize incentive payments to achieve school system goals or to attract teachers in high-demand disciplines. For example, the Houston school system offers annual bonuses of $2,000 to mathematics, science, bilingual, and special education teachers, as well as those who agree to teach in inner-city schools. According to research, prior to the early 1920s, merit-based pay was common for teachers. However, in an effort to address salary discrepancies between elementary and secondary school teachers, many school systems shifted towards "single salary schedules," which rewarded all teachers equally based on experience and training.
Interest in merit-based pay among school systems and states has fluctuated over the years. The concept has been tested in schools throughout the country, from West Hartford, Connecticut, to Kansas City, Missouri, and Kalamazoo, Michigan. In the late 1940s and 1950s, two states, New York and Delaware, passed laws implementing merit-based pay for teachers. However, its usage has been limited in recent decades. A report by the National Education Association (NEA) found that only 6.3 percent of school systems in communities with populations over 30,000 offered higher salaries for superior service in 1956-57, and many of them did not actually implement such salaries. By 1968-69, the NEA reports that 11.3 percent of school systems with enrollments of 6,000 or more students had some form of merit-based pay, but by 1972-73, this figure dropped to 5.5 percent.
Currently, the use of merit-based pay for teachers remains very limited. A survey conducted by the Southern Regional Education Board in October 1982 found that no states had policies in place regarding additional compensation for teachers recognized for outstanding performance, and only three states had policies for simply acknowledging good teaching. A 1979 survey by the Educational Research Service (ERS) revealed that only 4 percent of school systems nationwide had a merit-based pay or incentive plan for teachers in 1977-78.
Merit-based pay systems appear to be uncommon in other professions as well. A researcher for the Council of State Governments conducting a survey of state public-sector merit-based pay plans, excluding teachers, stated that several states have adopted such plans in the past six years, estimating that approximately 35 of them now have some form of merit-based salary system for certain public employees. However, those familiar with such plans suggest that their success has been modest, at best. According to Stanley E. Seashore of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, although many merit-based pay plans have been attempted in private industry and business, it would be inaccurate to assume that such systems are prevalent in the private sector. Experts also note that comparing merit-based pay between the teaching profession and the private sector may be unjustifiable since measuring "merit" is much simpler in the private sector where productivity and profits are the primary objectives.
Research indicates that very few merit-based pay plans in public schools have lasted for more than a few years, primarily due to a variety of reasons. The 1979 ERS survey found that most plans failed due to complex administration, high costs, difficulty reaching a consensus on the definition of meritorious teaching, or, most commonly, causing discord among teachers who believed the evaluation processes were unfair or who felt excluded from the plans’ development.
"The evidence indicates that individuals are influenced by monetary and other types of incentives," stated Robert L. Kahn, a psychology and medical care professor at the University of Michigan. He further explained that incentives lower than 10 percent of a person’s salary are unlikely to be effective.
Teacher Endorsement
Most experts agree that for alternative teacher compensation systems based on "merit" to be successful, they must also gain the approval of teachers. Governor Alexander informed Tennessee’s teacher unions about his master-teacher plan just hours before making it public. In the planning of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system, teachers have actively participated. However, a fair evaluation system with objective standards is crucial for any performance-based pay method. Many argue that the failure of previous merit-based pay plans demonstrates the significant shortcomings of school systems in maintaining teaching standards, supporting teachers’ growth, and removing unfit individuals from classrooms. According to Thomas L. Good, an education professor at the University of Missouri, the quality of school evaluations of teachers is consistently low. He criticizes the predominantly superficial evaluation methods used, which focus on aspects such as cleanliness, grooming, vocal pleasantness, and classroom movement. Good questions how teachers can improve under such a flawed system.
The Essence of the Problem
Dan C. Lortie, an education professor at the University of Chicago and author of "Schoolteacher," explains, "The heart of the problem is the lack of consensus on what constitutes effective teaching." In regard to past merit-based evaluations, Albert Shanker offers another perspective. He believes that historically, those who received merit pay were individuals who submitted paperwork on time or were non-confrontational, possibly even anti-union. Most teachers saw it as a mere public relations ploy due to its limited distribution.
Addressing the Issues
Both the Tennessee and Charlotte-Mecklenburg master-teacher plans aim to tackle these problems. Drawing inspiration from the well-established faculty evaluation method in higher education, both plans involve teachers in evaluating their peers. Additionally, they adopt a four-level promotion system used in universities to prevent favoritism. The Tennessee plan, to mitigate bias, prohibits teachers from the same school system from evaluating each other. This aspect of the plan has garnered praise from teachers’ unions.
Effective Teaching Research
Although the Tennessee proposal won’t be reconsidered for another year, the state’s education department is developing an evaluation plan for master teachers based on research conducted over the past decade on effective teaching. According to Ms. Rosenholtz of Vanderbilt, the evaluation will cover areas such as lesson planning, classroom management, instructional competency, and involvement in school activities. Tennessee is also working on a "master-principal" program aimed at fostering curriculum leadership among school administrators. Similarly, Atlanta is developing a similar program under the guidance of the Council for Basic Education. Other teacher evaluation reforms are also being implemented in Toledo, Ohio, and Dade County, Florida.
Revamping Careers in Education
The proposals for master-teacher programs in Tennessee and Charlotte-Mecklenburg are noteworthy for their aim to fundamentally reshape teaching careers. These initiatives allow all teachers the chance to take on new roles and responsibilities while still spending some time in the classroom. Many agree that the current structure of schools has a flaw: the best teachers are often forced to leave the classroom and become administrators in order to progress in their profession.
Some school systems have established the position of master teacher in a less comprehensive manner. For instance, teachers in Augusta, Ga., Lincoln, Neb., and Jefferson County, Colo., can become "Instructional Lead Teachers" or join a "Staff Development Academy." In these roles, they work with less-experienced colleagues and earn higher status and salaries.
However, as support for these ideas grows, experts caution that several challenging issues must be addressed to avoid repeating past failures. One such issue is cost. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, for example, will need to increase its budget by 10 percent when its master-teacher plan is fully implemented in about 15 years. Similarly, the Tennessee plan is expected to be "very expensive" to administer.
Interestingly, a recent poll conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates found that 57 percent of Tennesseans would be willing to support higher taxes to fund salary increases for teachers who meet higher standards. In contrast, only 13 percent would support tax increases for across-the-board pay raises. Additionally, a national Gallup Poll to be released this fall reveals that nearly 60 percent of respondents believe that teachers should be paid based on the quality of their work.
Determining what level of incentives teachers consider sufficient remains unclear. Leonard B. Bickman, a psychology professor at Vanderbilt University, explains that there is little research on the subject. He challenges the assumption that money can buy anything, especially when it comes to teachers’ motivations.
The Tennessee proposal addresses this concern by offering master teachers salaries on par with lower-level school administrators. This financial incentive aims to encourage these teachers to remain in the classroom. However, Ms. Lipskey of Cornell points out that there is no systematic research demonstrating that those receiving merit pay outperform their counterparts.
Another crucial question to consider is how much time and effort school systems are willing to dedicate to evaluation. Mr. Good from the University of Missouri raises this issue, highlighting that without adequate observation and assessment, it would be difficult to differentiate among the top 50 percent of teachers. He remains skeptical of this happening, considering the financial commitments and priorities of school systems.
