H ooray for Carroll County. The School Board wants state legislators to study the benefits of merit pay in the upcoming session starting this month.
They should study quickly and move the state system forward with a program that rewards performance in a way the private sector does and not in a way that treats the poor and mediocre performers the same way as the stellar teachers.
We are not alone in advocating merit pay. The September 2005 Governor?s Commission on Quality in Education report made creating a “new compensation system for teachers and principals” its No. 1 recommendation. A new system should “pay teachers according to their subject expertise, their demonstrated effectiveness, and the challenges of staffing particular schools,” the report said.
Merit pay causes apoplectic spasms among teacher?s unions across the nation, including in
Carroll County. Unions prefer to protect all union dues-payers, the poor performer and the stellar.
Chief among the objections is the ludicrous notion that teachers cannot be held accountable for student performance. “There is no objective criteria to judge a teacher,” according to Barry Potts, the president of the Carroll County Education Association. Oh, Mr. Potts, what can you be thinking or did you skip that process before you spoke? Is teaching the only profession where standards can?t be measured? If that is the case why does the profession offer teacher of the year awards? And why do some students regularly score higher on standardized tests and/or show marked improvements in knowledge under certain teachers? tutelage?
Even taking into account the argument that teachers can?t choose students, any legitimate merit pay system would take a number of factors, including student improvement, into the equation. And wouldn?t it be fairer if teachers knew they would be judged by the same standards across the school system rather than by a particular administrator he or she may not get along with, (a reality under which most of the rest of us work)?
Unlike raising teacher pensions, it would also provide a real incentive to keep the best performing teachers and those in hard-to-fill positions in math and science from leaving the classroom for more lucrative careers in the private sector. (The Maryland State Teacher?s Association last year advocated raising pensions as a surefire way to attract and retain high quality teachers without any evidence ? and persuaded the state legislature to increase benefits by $1.67 billion over 25 years. A recent joint study by the Abell Foundation and the Maryland Public Policy Institute debunked both assertions.)
Charles Ecker, the superintendent of Carroll County Public Schools, said he is willing to negotiate with teacher?s unions to make merit pay part of improving public education.
State School Superintendent Nancy Grasmick must support him and other administrators attempting structural reforms that will improve learning for generations of students. At the very least, she and her department must make chief among it?s public relations concerns debunking the idea promoted by unions that all teachers are equal.
So far, the state has supported “continued study” of merit pay, according to Bill Reinhard, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. If Grasmick really cares about attracting and keeping the best teachers, 2007 must be the year she aggressively promotes merit pay for the meritorious.
