Talk It Over: Education
Dollars And Sense: Pay Incentives For Teachers
By Paul Gasbarra on March 11, 2009
In a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, President Obama described his "five pillars" of education reform. The third pillar is recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers. He proposes to offer higher pay to math and science teachers and reward teachers for outstanding performance.
Are pay incentives a good way to improve teaching? Or will this foster competition and jealousy in an already troubled field? Log on and let us know your thoughts.
Comments
I work in a high school and I believe incentive pay for individual teachers is not the answer to the problem because the problem is that we need to improve schools. To an outsider it may seem like the logical way to improve schools is to improve teachers but we can't do that by having "islands of excellence". Our high schools are in need of reform, but it needs to be a collaborative effort by everyone.
For example, at our school, Career Technical Education students score higher in Math and Science on the ACT and our State test than do other students. The reason for this is not just that we have good Math and Science teachers, but we also show them how Math and Science are applied in the real world. This success is a joint effort. If the students can't read and understand the questions they can't demonstrate mastery of Math and Science.
I believe incentive pay has potential, but it should be based on school performance, not individual performance.
In response to Anonymous, I'd love to know what C & T school your students attend or at least the methods you are using to help the students score higher on their tests. At this time, we are in the pilot stage of integrating Math and Language Arts to our Vo-Tech school. One of our goals is to improve the students state scores for academic and vocational by 15%. Any information would be greatly appreciated!
As far as the incentive pay, this is a topic that can be debated for a long time. What's wrong with competition? Doesn't it build character and a drive to do what's best for the students? Are tenured teachers similar to abusive citizens of welfare? Once something is given and they realize not much effort has to be put forth to still receive this benefit, do they become complacent? If there are pay incentives, how are evaluations done and will they be non-biased? These are just a few of the questions that can be debated. My thought process is... what you put in is what you should get out. The harder you work, the more you deserve to be compensated for. BUT, I know as a third year teacher, the help I have received from fellow teachers has be invaluable. What's the saying... don't reinvent the wheel, just enhance it to your curriculum. Would this help and teamwork cease to exist if a pay incentive program is adopted?
March 15, 2009 - CM
I probably should have added a little more information. First, we are a comprehensive high school, not a C&T school. We have one high school in our area, so there are no options. Therefore, our CTE students compete with our regular students. Also, they don't score the highest individually (competing with Honor students, etc.), but as a group the CTE students score higher than the non-CTE students.
We believe this is the result of the added application of principles learned in "theory" courses. As you can imagine, this was a little bit of a shock to the stereotype academic teachers have in their head.
I agree with most of your comments about incentive for doing a better job, however, I don't see it as a viable school improvement tool. Of course, if teachers improve schools should improve. But until we begin to focus on all students learning instead of what we teach, school improvement will be based on individual performance that goes when and where the individual teacher goes.
That is why I said I support incentive pay as a tool for school improvement. That will encourage collaboration instead of competition. I don't rule out the value of individual incentives, I just don't see it as being really effective as a school improvement tool.
I am a high school student. I agree to your statement about learning math and science and knowing what you actually will use it for in life. i have been learning math all the way up to calculus and i basically don't know what is the purpose of it until i had an architect class that does little with the pi. so it is best if students know what it will be apply for in life.
It is shortsighted to say that only math and science teachers are deserving of extra pay. Working in a high school I know that each and every math and science teacher is degreed in their field. Does that make them a good teacher? Does being a nationally board certified teacher make one teacher better than another? Not necessarily so. To say that an art teacher or an english teacher is less deserving than a math or science teacher is poorly thought out. It is the sum of a student's experiences that make them who they are. It takes a community to raise a child, it takes a community to make a student. What makes the most difference is the level of interest and caring that a student feels. The average student today is usually not self-motivated. They have a home life which is uninspiring and face more social issues than you or I ever thought of at their age.
When a student has direction and motivation, they then make the most progress. Self-efficacy is the ultimate goal. It is rarely one specific person that motivates a student and often only takes one to demotivate them. I work 12 hour days on average. I am technically only paid for 7. Out of the extra five hours I give eight hours each week in extra tutorial and help sessions to my students. Like most of my colleagues I am beleaguered by a system that has placed judgement of a school and its teachers based solely on state testing.
The many and meaningless meetings that I am subjected to in the name of professional development make me resentful of a process which has dumbed down our students. The trickle up effect of this is that high school teachers get kids with no vocabulary who don't know their multiplication facts or how to follow an algorithm. These students are poor readers and cannot do algebra which means they will get passed along until they just can't do anymore and either drop out or graduate with so low a gpa their chances of succeeding in college are slim. The trickle up effect progresses to college professors who now have to unravel their students' five-paragraph essay mentality, which got them through a state test which measured how quickly they could put together a short essay given no preview of the topic. but didn't teach them how to think.
Will pay incentives improve teaching you bet. I might be able to pay my bills without having to work a second job. Will singling out certain teachers for higher pay foster competition and jealousy, absolutely. Will the community of teachers that makes a student suffer? Absolutely. Will the student themselves suffer? Without a doubt.
I think the logic behind singling out math and science is a way to draw more people with these types of degrees when they could just as easily make a starting wage of $60,000 a year out of college. What incentive is there for these people to go into the education field if the pay is $36,000 a year?
I have other concerns though: How does one measure a good teacher? Who would determine this? And why is it either the parent or the teacher and never the administration (who gets a huge salary and often ties the hands of parents and teachers) that gets the finger pointing?
How do SpEd and AP teachers figure in? SpEd would never get merit pay and AP always would? How do you figure in socio-economic factors? We are not talking about widgets being produced in a factory...then again this is an Obama idea so maybe......
Post new comment