Pay for Performance and Educators

The United States is a competitive, aggressive place for career-seekers. Getting ahead sometimes requires unsavory tactics. Is it really a good idea to incorporate these corporate ideals into our education system?

Oregon is one of the states where pay-for-performance for educators has made its way onto the ballot before. It was struck down in 2000 nearly 2 to 1. This measure failed because one of the key components of any performance-based pay scale increase was tied directly to standardized testing. In this case, the voters and educators were worried that 'teaching to the test' would soon replace general education.

This problem has plagued the pay-for-performance movement. Many people believe that their kids are tested enough, and indeed they have a case. Students are tested now far more heavily than students in the nineties. By 'teaching to the test,' students may miss key components of academic study. Teacher unions are strong, and they have thus far stymied attempts by legislators to come in and tinker with the pay structure in public education.

The current system rewards teachers based on experience and education. Teachers with longer tenures make more than teachers fresh from college. Educators with Masters degrees, on average, make a bit more than comparable teachers with only Bachelor degrees. Teachers can rely on--barring any humiliating or public disaster--annual assessments with their school boards and usually a modest pay increase.

Implementing pay-for-performance would be a mistake for a number of reasons. Regardless of the changes that legislators adjust in bills and referendums, the fact is that these performance reviews will need to be numbers-based. In other words, the increases will come from higher test scores. No matter what bland and non-direct language is used in campaign rhetoric, the only logical manner by which to measure a teacher's performance is through empirical evidence. This will inevitably lead to teachers focusing more attention on the needs of the standardized test, and less on the needs of the individual students.

Second, pay-for-performance is a corporate invention. In the world of crazed executives, determined boards, and agitated stockholders, companies were forced to roll out with an initiative that not only rewarded those with the best production, but singled out those with weaker efforts. In short, companies could keep tabs on potential superstars and possible anchors. In business this works. Performance is rewarded with money, promotions, and perks. Those eager to get ahead are compensated and recognized for their efforts. But, it adds an atmosphere of fierce competition. Competition can grow business, but it can destroy relationships. Adding this type of hostility into our public education is a terrible idea. Venom breeds venom and children learn better than anyone else.

Last, recognition of teachers is necessary. In some cases, monetary rewards will foster education growth. What really needs to be considered in an across-the-board review of the pay scale for educators. In some cases, first-year teachers are paid as little at 20,000 per year. Educators play a vital role in the construction and protection of our future. These teachers must be compensated fairly, but pay-for-performance is the wrong way to attack this problem. Rather, it is important for Washington to review the key metrics of education progress, and base increases on these metrics.