Teachers

In the ongoing question of how to educate the masses in the modern age, some ideas are worthy of serious consideration and some are not. Merit-based pay for teachers falls in the "not" category.

Entrepreneur and previous presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has been making the rounds on news programs advocating for merit-based pay for teachers. Ramaswamy claims that "pay for performance" is what businesses in the private sector do, and says, "There's no reason we shouldn't be running our public schools in the same way."

Oh yes, there are many reasons why we shouldn't be running our public schools this way.

1. Things that are not businesses should not be run like a business

Businesses are businesses. Governments are governments. Schools are schools. The idea of of running any of those things like any of the others is just silly, no matter which way you try to do it. Imagine saying a business should be run like a school or a government. Makes no sense, right? Having been both a teacher and a business owner, I can tell you that educating children and running a business are night and day endeavors, and what applies to one has nothing to do with the other.

The goal of a business is to make money by providing consumers a product or a service. The more money you make, the more successful your business is. That's a pretty simple equation with simple definitions. The goal of a school is to make sure that children and teens gain the knowledge and skills they need to enter the adult world and be a functioning, contributing member of a society.

But what does that entail? And what does "educate" even mean? Who decides what skills and knowledge are necessary for the masses to have, and how do we go about making sure each child and teen learns those things? These are questions education specialists have been asking for centuries, and the answers aren't cut and dry. Education itself is complicated, and measuring education is even more so.

2. Measuring "merit" and "performance" of teachers is incredibly complex

Let's say we were going to go ahead with merit pay for teachers. How do we measure it? How do we determine what makes someone a high-performing teacher vs. a low-performing teacher?

In a business, we have Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)—measurable things we keep track of to see how we're doing. A KPI might be a quota or a percentage of growth or something else numerical that can be put into a spreadsheet and charted to see performance or progress.

What kind of KPIs would teachers have? Number of lesson plans? That's going to vary by teacher and subject. Number of hours spent teaching? That's already predetermined. Quality of teaching? Based on whose methodology or subjective perspective?

We'd have to use measurements such as student test scores, grades, or other assessments to which we try to assign numbers, which are already controversial in and of themselves. Tying teacher "merit" to those student scores is inherently problematic for several reasons.

3. It ignores inherent advantages and disadvantages in different schools and districts

Tying teacher pay to student outcomes assumes a good teacher = good student test scores/grades and bad teacher = poor student test scores/grades. But people who actually have experience teaching hundreds or thousands of kids will tell you that's not how the math works out. There are incredible teachers who bend over backward for their students and pour their entire heart into teaching whose students struggle to perform well on tests or get good grades. And there are teachers who don't have to make a big effort because they work in wealthy districts where parent involvement and resources means students will almost assuredly score well on tests regardless of the quality of teaching.

Schools and school districts vary by degrees that would probably shock most Americans if they saw the discrepancies. It is patently unfair to reward teachers who live and work in districts where students have every advantage, from the latest technology to private tutors, and punish those who work in districts where families struggle just to put food on the table and students have to navigate the perils of poverty while trying to learn.

Education is as much an art as a science.Photo credit: Canva

How to best measure student outcomes is already a big question mark in education. Tying them to teacher pay as a measurement of "merit" just adds another unnecessary layer of complexity to it.

4. It incentivizes the abandonment of disadvantaged students

If you're a teacher and your pay is tied directly to student outcomes, where are you going to want to teach? In a school district in a wealthy district where parents have the means to pay for tutors, high property taxes ensure schools are well-funded, and kids have plenty to eat? Or a school district where kids come to school hungry, parents may not be as engaged, and schools struggle to get the resources they need? Which student outcomes are going to mean a better paycheck for you as a teacher?

Merit-based pay means well-off school districts with higher student scores will get more teacher applicants, and can therefore be more selective, and will therefore perpetuate high student outcomes even more.

5. It incentivizes 'teaching to the test' and discourages other learning

Some student learning is easily measurable with a standardized test and some is not. Math? That's easy to measure. Rote memorization of facts? Sure, test it. But how well a student understands historical implications or grasps lessons learned through literature studies or are able to appreciate a work of art or can apply what they've learned to real-world situations? Those things are a lot harder to standardize or measure. Teaching is an art and a science, and teachers know that learning growth is neither a linear process nor a purely numerical one. There's so much progress that teachers can see that a test can't measure what gets lost when test score "outcomes" are overemphasized.

And what about grades? For many subjects, grades are subjective, so if teacher pay is tied to grade improvements, that's just asking for grades to be even more subjective. Even if merit-based pay for teachers resulted in improved test scores or grade measurements on paper, that doesn't mean the quality of teaching or education has actually gone up. It just means the focus has shifted to measurable learning, often to the detriment of equally important learning that's harder to measure.

Ramaswamy has said that merit measurement would also include things like parent feedback and peer assessments. But those kinds of assessments are wildly subjective and rife with gaming potential.

6. It's insulting to the majority of teachers who are already doing their best

There will always be teachers who are willing to work in lower income districts because they love kids and they love teaching and they're doing it for the good of humankind. In fact, I'd say most teachers fall into the category of doing it for the love of the work, which is also why merit-based pay is ridiculous. The merit-based pay idea is based on an assumption that most teachers aren't already doing their best. Teachers want to be paid what their work is worth, not compete for who gets better pay based on measurements they only have so much control over. The idea that throngs of teachers are just phoning it in, and that they'd only work harder or perform better if there were some kind of merit-based incentive to do so, is insulting.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers to improving education in the United States, but the idea that educator performance is the primary problem is a claim made by people who have never set foot in a classroom as a teacher. There are lots of solutions that can and should be tried, but merit-based pay for teachers isn't one of them.