1. Merit PayThe debate rages on . . . .EDUC 6232Supervision & Evaluation of InstructionNicholas PittG46206111

2. Historical Background Not a new concept in education Growth of Single Salary Schedules date to WWII Used as tool to fight pay inequalities between males,females, and minorities Periodic debate centered on the need to revamp anantiquated structure Teachers Unions have traditionally opposed changingthe pay structure Current trends in federal grants favor an overhaul ofsalary scales Koppich, J. E. (2010). Teacher unions and new forms of teacher compensation. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 22-26. 3. A Breakdown of Merit PayFinal Salary StudentSelf-Supervisors SuccessEvaluation EvaluationHanshaw, L. G. (2004). Value-related issues in a departmental merit pay plan. Professional Educator, 26(2), 57-68. 4. A simple enough plan, right?So, whats the debate? 5. Cons: Merit Pay Undermines Education Education cannot be incentivized like the private sector Favoritism likely to influence evaluations Status, not contribution, major factor in salary Some school conditions are beyond teacher controlRamirez, A. (2001). How merit pay undermines education. Educational Leadership. 90(2). 17-20. 6. Further Criticism Few people in other professions are paid based on measured outcomes Unpopular with teachers Heavy focus on standardized tests Weak evidence of successLevin, B. (2011). Why paying teachers based on student results is a bad idea. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 89-90. 7. Pros: Merit Pay Supports Reform American schools lagging internationally Countries with merit pay outperform U.S. schools Economic theory states effort tied to reward Recent study shows 15-25% increase in nations withmerit pay initiativesWoessmann, L. (2011). Merit pay international: Countries with performance pay for teachers score higher on PISA tests. EducationNext. 73-77. 8. Further Support Historically successful for brief periods of time Small rewards have great returns Archaic evaluation tools have been replaced by morecomprehensive measures Continued upward mobilityJohnson, S., & Papay, J. P. (2010). Merit pay for a new generation. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 48-52. 9. Merit Pay In Action The Benwood PlanFailing school which used grant to launch teacher-centeredreformTeachers had to reapply for their positionsCounty officials offered incentives to attract top talentImplemented Value-Added dataUsed as example for other low-achieving districtsSilva, E. (2008). The Benwood Plan: A lesson in comprehensive teacher reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(2), 127-134. 10. Conclusions Obvious change is needed in education One model will not work for every school Local conditions need to be considered Teachers need to buy in to any changes Will remain controversial despite dataThank you for viewing! 11. SourcesCamins, A. H. (2011). Two roads diverge for American education. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 44-46.Finkel, E. (2011). Changing of the guard in Florida. District Administration, 47(9), 82-88.Fleming, N. (2011). Some efforts on merit pay scaled back. (Cover story). Education Week, 31(4), 1-18.Hanshaw, L. G. (2004). Value-related issues in a departmental merit pay plan. Professional Educator, 26(2), 57-68.Johnson, S., & Papay, J. P. (2010). Merit pay for a new generation. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 48-52.Koppich, J. E. (2010). Teacher unions and new forms of teacher compensation. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 22-26.Levin, B. (2011). Why paying teachers based on student results is a bad idea. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 89-90.Woessmann, L. (2011). Merit pay international: Countries with performance pay for teachers score higher on PISA tests.Education Next. 73-77.