Few reliable models for merit pay

By Frank R. Petruzielo

Gov. Sonny Perdue recently announced his proposal to change the way Georgia educators are compensated from a traditional career ladder pay scale to one based on student achievement.

While higher compensation for effective teaching leading to increased learning makes common sense, merit or performance pay has been attempted numerous times in many locales, with decidedly lackluster results.

Georgia should review the attempts of other states to identify both positive results and common pitfalls and use this research to construct a model that will attract and retain the best and brightest teachers and teacher leaders in our state.

Some of the missteps to avoid and challenges to consider:

● Use of annual “snapshot” data to determine achievement.

When tying teacher performance evaluation to student achievement, the simplest methodology is to use statewide, annual assessments that are already in place, a congenital flaw in the federal No Child Left Behind Act provisions regarding Adequate Yearly Progress.

AYP is a misnomer as the law does not measure “progress” in the true sense of the word.

Instead, No Child Left Behind compares student proficiency rates on standardized tests in one year to scores of different students on the same tests in the following year.

A true measure of progress would be individual student proficiency measured by the same assessment given at the beginning of a school year, as compared to proficiency on that test at the end of the school year.

● The current No Child Left Behind goal of proficiency for all students by 2014, regardless of English proficiency or disability, sounds good, but it is not fair or realistic.

Expecting a high school-age student with limited English skills who has recently arrived in the United States with little or no formal educational background to be as proficient in English as an 11th grade student who was born, raised and educated here is not reasonable.

This also holds true for special-education students with Individual Education Plans that clearly reflect that they aren’t capable of mastering 11th grade subject matter due to mental and/or physical limitations.

Unfortunately, this is the current expectation of No Child Left Behind.

If subject mastery is the goal, then a more meaningful approach would be to measure individual student gains on a consistent assessment tool until such time as the student is proficient in that subject.

● The recent state analysis of systematic erasures on CRCT score sheets has raised the question about whether some schools have artificially inflated their test scores in order to achieve AYP.

If financial compensation is tied to student pass rates on high-stakes tests, research on merit pay clearly reflects that the incentive to cheat will be significantly enhanced.

There is no statewide uniform student grading system or teacher evaluation process now that is aligned with the state’s recent move to become student performance/standards-based.

Comparing standardized test scores of one group of students to another to evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness is not compatible with a standards-based curriculum and multiple grading systems.

How will the merit pay plan address these gaps?

What is the role of professional development in planning, developing and implementing performance-based pay?

Can this be implemented without training?

How will training be accomplished at a time when state austerity reductions continue to erode already diminished funding available for staff development?

Should there be a requirement for the same level of accountability for Georgia’s charter schools and for private schools receiving public funding through vouchers?

How will performance-based pay affect teachers in fine arts, physical education, career/technical and other, non-core areas that don’t have a statewide standardized test for measuring student learning?

In light of the budget crisis and with no additional funding allotted for increasing teacher salaries, a system that allows some teachers to earn more will likely mean that other teachers make less.

The governor’s proposal will allow existing teachers to “opt in” to the new system — but what if no one does?

What if everyone does? Who will develop the fiscal analysis to show the impact of various scenarios? Where is the annual, recurring revenue stream that will fund this initiative going forward?

It is instructive to note that many statewide pay for performance plans gradually morphed over time from individual into group merit pay-bonus plans due primarily to unintended consequences and complexities associated with implementing a theoretically objective evaluation system into a highly subjective field of endeavor.

The current state salary schedule for teachers considers inputs, rather than outputs; it does not compensate teachers adequately unless they stay in the profession for decades; and it does little to accomplish the goal of attracting and retaining high quality teachers.

In fact, the attrition rate for Georgia teachers who give up their dream of a classroom career within the first five years, when salary is lowest and challenges are greatest, is an alarming 35 percent.

There is some early evidence of better results with pay for performance models that utilize a tiered approach, and those models may also be worth further study.

If there were effective merit pay models already out there that were fair, defensible, unambiguous and easy to implement, every state and school district would already have one.

Our teachers and students deserve an honest and comprehensive attempt at planning, developing and implementing such a change.

Frank R. Petruzielo is school superintendent in Cherokee County.