Frequently in education circles, we are privy to words such as “accountability” and “merit pay.” They transcend ed-speak. Who, after all, is not in favor of teachers being held accountable as well as being compensated commensurately for results, especially when they are good?
Problem is, these concepts are more effective in the political arena, where they are sound-bite staples, and the traditional workplace. Widget production, sales figures and quotas can be more honestly quantified. The business model can’t be shoehorned into the classroom, however glibly it’s presented. And come to think of it, wasn’t “accountability” the rationale for FCATS?
In another words, academic achievement — especially that defined by make-or-break test scores –are more than the product of effective teaching, as critical as that is. Would, frankly, that it were that cause-and-effect simple.
Which leads us to the ground-breaking, scientifically rigorous study recently conducted by Vanderbilt University’s National Center on Performance Incentives. They found that students whose teachers were given merit bonuses fared no better on standardized tests than students of teachers who were not given such incentives.
Obviously, there are variables beyond the ideal that no one goes into teaching for the money. Education has been likened to a three-legged stool: the legs representing teachers, students and parents. There are no “average” students — in terms of ability, motivation, maturity or home environment. And there are no “average” home environments. Some have parents who can reinforce what a teacher is doing. Some don’t even have — by any meaningful definition — “parents.”
Context matters, of course, and MaryEllen Elia, superintendent of Hillsborough County Schools, notes that the study did not factor in any support programs, such as those being designed for Hillsborough schools, and cautions against misinterpretation of the Vanderbilt study.
Fair enough.
Hillsborough is right to be taking a multi-faceted approach that puts a premium on teacher hiring and improvement, as well as accountability and a broader criterion for compensation — one that weighs in with principal and peer evaluations.
The challenge then — for those principals and peers — is how to fairly assess all three legs of that stool, the one the teacher — and her performance pay — is perched precariously upon. Mentors and workshops have their limits.