The overall performance of our schools is a fundamentally critical topic of discussion. We must have high academic standards for both the teachers we employ, and the students they teach. Once dynamic and self-initiated teaching personnel are hired, there is the contentious issue of how to pay them. A flat rate? Or one that fluctuates based on student performance? The latter idea is one of much debate in school districts around the country.

Some believe that linking teachers pay and bonuses based on students’ performance is not only an incentive to be better teachers, but also to inspire more people to join the profession due to higher potential wages.  Those against this idea refer to institutions who have already established this dynamic payroll. Rather than inspiring the teachers to work hard, it has resulted in rivalry among the faculty. It is important to look at this issue from both sides of the argument in order to make an informed decision. The more important question is: What is the link between these payment policies and our children’s education?  What do such pay systems do to our teachers’ motivation, and are these the proper steps to take to improve our education system?

Argument 1:

Based on evidence gathered by social scientists, there is reason to believe that the socioeconomic environment of a student, their family and peers can have an impact in the classroom as well. Teachers living in areas of well-funded schools, affordable housing, and strong economic infrastructure certainly have an advantage versus those whose neighborhoods are in poverty. The same case applies to their students. Considering the above, teachers in good locations cannot typically be made more effective by a reward based compensation system rather than one implemented for a teacher of less fortunate students.

Commencement of such a system has the potential to overburden the local economy. When a teacher or teacher’s students perform well, their pay and bonuses are raised progressively over time. Where will those economies dependent on donor funding and subjected to high inflation rates acquire such large sums of money to provide for these unproven increased payments? This is not to say there aren’t other areas where economies can thrive. Given the current economic state, it would be equally irresponsible to keep teachers in low-paying positions.

This performance based payment incentive can cause teachers to be focused on getting higher test scores and increasing their pay, instead of focusing on the students’ individual learning. Those with a passion for teaching take great pride in seeing their students succeed. Monetary incentive cannot be seen as the best or only alternative to conjure the best results from teachers.  Passionate teachers would be unaffected by the incentive. An issue as fundamental as education should not be subject to the potential greed found in making money the prize.

Some studies even suggest that these payment initiatives result in worse teaching quality. How is that? The knowledge that your paycheck and bonuses rely on your students’ performance can lead to unequal attention in the classroom. Those students who are more naturally motivated to do well could receive more attention from the teacher in order to get the best scores possible, while leaving the less motivated students neglected. The very basis for having teachers is to inspire all students to achieve positive academic performance, not for just a few students to benefit. Paying teachers based on their performance can also encourage them to teach only the material on a test, discouraging them from paying attention to slower-learning students. Instead of improving teaching, this results in teachers neglecting to encourage those who would not impact their bank account.

Collaboration is a vital tool for inspiring good performances in every social sector, not just education. Taking up such a performance pay system has shown to increase teacher rivalry rather than motivate them to work together. The result is teachers working alone with fewer or no consultations on critical issues that can better the students’ learning.

Argument 2:

Merit pay or other performance pay programs offer added motivation for teachers in keeping novice teachers from leaving the profession after a few years, and especially in retaining experience (Mulkeen 134). In our modern day society, where there is decreased employer-employee commitment as a result of contracts, a performance based pay package can help retain the teaching personnel of an institution. Many leave the teaching profession in search of higher paying jobs. Retaining a good staff can be essential at obtaining stability, and with stability, students can receive the support and guidance they require without being in an unfamiliar learning environment.

A merit-based plan will take into consideration the rewarding of high performing teachers who clearly exemplify the ideal teacher-student relationship. Accountability based on the results produced coupled with performance-based payment for the best performing teachers should be used. Such plans will reward good teachers, and hold school administrators accountable, as well as offer a challenge to the lesser-performing teachers to improve. Of course, not all teachers are equal in quality, so it may be necessary to reward the more effective ones at a higher pay platform as opposed to their counterparts. In the private sector, exceptionally skilled employees are rewarded. In the same way, exceptionally skilled administrators and teachers should be rewarded based on their performance.

Payment plans tied to teacher performance can greatly contribute to student achievement. It has been observed that in schools using merit pay structures, they are better able to attract teachers versus schools with no merit pay system. This is helpful in enabling schools with a lower academic profile to attract quality teachers. A case scenario here is a review of the Advancement Program for the Teachers in Arizona. This program indicated that over a three-year period, 61 teachers started working at the two schools of lowest socioeconomic status in the Madison school district, both of which use the TAP and of these teachers 21% have come from schools in high socioeconomic areas. Better educational outcomes have been realized. Proponents of this system argue that paying teachers according to their performance would parallel the management policies adapted by the private sector and would thus lead to better educational outcomes.