By Tom
This month we’ve heard both presidential candidates address education. Nothing too surprising was said: Obama’s in favor of parents getting more involved in their children’s schools but against vouchers. McCain’s in favor of vouchers but against teacher unions. However, there was one issue that both candidates seemed to agree on, at least in principle: merit pay.
The idea of merit pay has been batted around ever since I can remember. It sounds like a great idea. A win-win. Good teachers get more money while the students get a better education. Competition leads to better products and lower prices in the retail industry, right? Athletes thrive when they compete, don’t they? It sounds like a simple solution to a very complicated problem.
Which is exactly why it won’t work, at least the way most people envision it.
And I can give you two good reasons why not. It won’t be fair and it won’t necessarily result in better schools.
Merit pay, the way most people understand it, is not fair. Merit pay supporters would like to link students’ test scores to their teachers’ salaries. But schools typically test third through tenth grade students in math and reading, and some include writing and science. That’s it. A merit pay system would exclude all preschool through second-grade teachers, as well as those who teach music, P.E., social studies, art, etc. That stinks, which is why some merit pay supporters have countered with a variant idea of merit pay that would reward the entire faculty of a high-performing school, based on the premise that all learning in “non-core subjects” indirectly leads to higher achievement in the core academic areas. I’m not too sure about that premise, nor am I willing to justify something as essential as music education solely on the grounds that it might indirectly increase a person’s number sense. Furthermore, this policy has the potential to reward an ineffective teacher who’s lucky enough to be working with an otherwise excellent faculty, while punishing a hard-working, dynamic teacher who has the misfortune to be surrounded by ineffective colleagues. That is not fair.
Merit pay, as most supporters imagine it, would not result in better schools. In fact, they could end up much worse. Let’s imagine what it might look like in Washington state. Imagine a scheme whereby a third grade teacher gets a ten thousand dollar bonus if 70% of his students reach standard on the reading and math WASL test. Depending on how badly that teacher wants the money, there are a number of steps he could employ to achieve this goal. He could start by drastically reducing the time spent on anything other than math and reading. Next, he could focus, within those two subjects, on those ideas and concepts that he knows will be tested. Not convinced that he’s going to get that bonus, he could really drift to the dark side. Knowing that his goal is to get a certain number of students to reach standard, he might take a long look at his class and divide them into four groups. First there’s the top group. We’ll call them the “Fours.” He’s not worried about these kids. They’ll easily pass both tests. He doesn’t need to pay attention to them, so he doesn’t. They pretty much stay where they are, not getting any lower, but not really learning anything, either. The “Threes” are the students who are right at standard. He has to pay attention to them, because if he doesn’t, they could become “Twos,” which are the kids he’s really going to focus on. His bonus ultimately rests on his ability to turn twos into threes and to keep threes from becoming twos. And the “Ones?” He’s written them off, realizing that no amount of work on his part will likely result in turning them into threes. At least not this year. It’s far more cost-effective to focus his time and energy on those kids hovering around the cut-off point. So he does, and he gets his bonus, and probably even gets recognized by his district and the community. Even though he only taught parts of two subjects, and didn’t even teach those to the highest and lowest-achieving students in his classroom.
Merit pay, as it is envisioned by most supporters, will not necessarily result in better schools, and there is a potential to really screw up the schools we have now.
Of course, there is an alternative. Instead of rewarding teachers based on the results of their students’ test scores, let’s look at what they’re actually doing in the classroom. I contend that it’s possible to recognize those teachers who are doing those things in their classrooms that we know are going to help kids learn. We don’t have to depend on standardized test scores. In fact, for reasons described earlier, most of the time we can’t or shouldn’t. That certainly doesn’t mean we should stop collecting and analyzing standardized data on our students. To do so would deprive good teachers of one of their most important tools. But student test scores should never be used to evaluate teachers, especially for the purpose of granting pay raises. Never.
Instead, we could look at the complexity of teaching. That means examining the huge body of research that’s been compiled by our friends in higher ed. We should take the time to figure out exactly what a high-performing teacher should be doing in the classroom. We should identify the content that teacher should know, in order to do the job well. We should articulate this information in a set of standards and distribute these standards so that teachers everywhere can read them and aspire to reach them.
Then let’s take it a step further. Let’s give teachers an opportunity to show that they’ve met those standards. And the only fair way to do it is to make them compile a portfolio, showing evidence that their teaching skills match the standards to which they aspire. These portfolios should include video tapes that show the teachers working with students. Let’s require the inclusion of student work that they can write about, describing what this work shows and what they did to help their students improve on their work. And just to make sure they have the content and professional knowledge needed to do the job well, let’s have them take a rigorous, three-hour written test.
The process I’ve described is called National Board Certification. It represents the only fair and productive way to recognize and reward accomplished teachers. It’s been in place since 1994, after a sharp group of teachers, educational leaders, policy-makers and folks from the business community spent seven years writing the standards, portfolio guidelines and test questions for over fifteen different teaching positions.
We should reward the 64,000 teachers who have achieved National Board Certification. Many states, including Washington, already do this. Washington National Board Certified Teachers get a $5,000 bonus for all the reasons that the merit pay supporters have already come up with. It’s a win-win. Good teachers get more money while the students get a better education. This is a complicated solution to a very complicated problem, which is the only solution it deserves.
John, four points:
1. “While self-reflection is a valuable thing, I doubt that any of us actually has the temerity (sic) to claim that we are the fount of answers.”
-I couldn’t agree more. National Board candidates do not merely self-reflect. They examine their teaching against a set of very rigorous standards. Something I made clear in my original post, if not the comment to which you seem to be replying.
2. “I would prefer that those of us who wish to be better teachers would study with people who can challenge us and extend our thinking. Our individual ideas are pertinent, but they are also the ideas to which we already have access.”
-So would I, which is why I also obtained a Masters degree at an excellent university and is why I am seriously contemplating the pursuit of my doctorate. I believe self-reflection (against a set of high standards) and rigorous study with colleagues are both viable and complimentary means to improved teaching. You’re right; teachers need to learn from experts in order to improve. But don’t be so quick to dismiss the power of self-reflection. In fact, most master’s programs employ a generous amount of it.
3. “While all master’s degrees may not be equal, I am confident that NBPTS would fall below the mean.”
-You’re comparing apples and oranges. National Board certification is not a substitute for a master’s degree.
4. “Interior dialogue and NBPTS represent the echo chamber effect of the fracturing of public discourse. An example of this is people who continue to try to influence educational policy by citing A Nation at Risk, while remaining blythely (sic) ignorant of the Sandia Report as outlined in The Manufactured Crisis By David C. Berliner, Bruce J. Biddle, James Bell. Reflection of bad ideas is simply the propagation of bad ideas.”
-I’m not blithely ignorant of the Sandia Report (although I could certainly be excused for being so, given the wonderful job of censorship of the document by our previous administration) I cited the premise of A Nation at Risk because, despite its inaccuracies, it provided the impetus for the current school reform movement.
Thanks for reading our blog, John. But before lashing out at proponents of National Board Certification, I suggest you go to their website and download the standards and portfolio instructions for your area. (AYA Science, right?) Two things might happen: 1. You’ll gain an appreciation for the process and soon see that it isn’t a bunch of “Emperors wearing new clothes.” 2. You just might decide to pursue certification. Your students will thank you.
I am comforable with people who benefit from fiscal policies in schools endorsing those policies. However, a statement such as
“Going through the process requires a candidate to describe, analyze and reflect and(sic) their teaching to a degree that is impossible to describe to someone who hasn’t been through it.”
truly begs a challenge. This argument has such a quality of the “emperor’s new clothes” that I will not spend time on that aspect. The fact that compelling description is elusive may simply flow from the lack of clarity about what has been accomplished. While self-reflection is a valuable thing, I doubt that any of us actually has the timerity to claim that we are the fount of answers. I would prefer that those of us who wish to be better teachers would study with people who can challenge us and extend our thinking. Our individual ideas are pertinent, but they are also the ideas to which we already have access. Extend yourself to ideas greater than your current store, and subject yourself to criticism with faculty with whom you can have an actual learning relationship. While all master’s degrees may not be equal, I am confident that NBPTS would fall below the mean.
Interior dialogue and NBPTS represent the echo chamber effect of the fracturing of public discourse. An example of this is people who continue to try to influence educational policy by citing A Nation at Risk, while remaining blythely ignorant of the Sandia Report as outlined in The Manufactured Crisis By David C. Berliner, Bruce J. Biddle, James Bell. Reflection of bad ideas is simply the propagation of bad ideas.
Tom, I think all teachers would say that we have a responsibility to push ourselves to the next level both in our own setting and by seeking extra certifications and trainings. I believe that anything I have done to improve my teaching has caused me to think deeply about what I teach and how I teach it. That is what I require of myself as a person and as a professional. While I would agree that any training, including NBCT, improves teacher performance and thereby student performance, I must disagree with the superiority given to NBCT’s solely on the process involved. I have been told many times that I simply would not understand unless I went through the process. What I am saying is that my merit has been proven year after year, along with many of my colleagues, by what I do in the classroom and within the school system and community as a professional. The state has made such a huge deal of one process that should not be seen as the end-all solution for creating a better teaching force. There are many teachers who meet every requirement that is within the NBCT process who are seen as “not quite up to snuff” and do not receive the recognition and advancements they deserve, only because they do not have the NBCT after their name. The elitist attitude that the state has about this process and the trickle down that happens with districts and principals is not fair and most importantly is not right. That is why it should definitely be a part of the state pay scale, not some separate process that puts some above others. While I appreciate that some that have responded here say that they do not consider themselves above their colleagues, what speaks louder is that NBCT’s are given extra pay that amounts to no more than merit pay, and given opportunities that are deserved by so many others. To make it a part of the pay scale would help this process be perceived as just another step in bumping up our paychecks and helping us become better teachers. Although no one has responded to this site or other sites I have been on, with my same point of view, I know that behind closed doors professionals are feeling stripped of their various educational accomplishments and their feeling of doing not just a good job, but an exceptional job, because we are being made to feel that if we haven’t earned our NBCT, we can’t possibly be in touch with your students or our material. That is wrong, especially in a profession where the negatives can outweigh the positives by a huge amount during the school year.
Nancy-
In 1984 a report came out entitled “A Nation at Risk.” It described the horrible condition of America’s schools and inspired a host of school reform movements that can be classified into two schools of thought. One school of thought runs something like this: Use student test scores to measure teacher performance, report the scores, praise the high scorers and hope that the others will be motivated to do better. The other school of thought runs a little differently: Articulate exactly what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do, publish these as sets of standards, one for each teaching position, (K-2 generalist, 3-6 generalist, high school art teacher, etc.) and offer certificates to those teachers who can show that they’ve met those standards by creating a portfolio of their work as well and by taking a comprehensive, job-specific test to measure their understanding of content knowledge and pedagogy. The first school of thought has had enormous appeal to lawmakers and others who want instant, obvious solutions to a complex problem. And we’ve tried this approach to school reform without very much in the way of real, sustainable success. The second school of thought, as you’ve no doubt guessed, is represented by The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Whether or not you care to acknowledge it, studies have been done that have showed that NBCTs do make a difference in the classroom, thus satisfying even the proponents of the data-driven reformers. As an NBCT myself, I regret that you’ve had some unfortunate experiences with NBCTs in different contexts. But you need to understand that becoming an NBCT isn’t supposed to be about “rising above” the rest of the faculty. For me, and for the vast majority of NBCTs that I know, its about thinking deeply about what you do as a teacher, understanding the needs of your students, knowing your curriculum inside and out, and matching your practice and the decisions that you make to those students and that curriculum. In short, it’s about everything you’ve described in your comment. I don’t know any teacher who didn’t improve as a result of pursuing certification, including the teachers who were unsuccessful. So is it fair for NBCTs to be compensated with a bonus? I think so, because it works successfully as an incentive to get teachers to go through the process and become better teachers. States, districts and schools across the country look at it as an investment; anticipating a return that’s greater than what they spend. And they seem to agree that it’s a valuable investment, because every year, more and more states, districts and even schools are investing more and more money on NB Certification. Happy holidays, Nancy. It’s a pleasure reading and responding to someone who articulates strong opinions so clearly.
Tom, interesting to read your response. I find nothing about why districts/PTAs should be responsible for an investment in a personal decision by a teacher to improve themselves professionally. Also, it is not possible to teach for one day, nay I say one hour without constantly analyzing
and reflecting. I find myself doing it minute by minute sometimes, constantly changing my footing as facilitator, as the students find their way through state standards. It is necessary to be scientific and data-oriented when a teacher, yes, but no one, as far as I know, has spoken to the ability to produce self-learners who are motivated and driven and most importantly, believe they can. Children with self-control and the maturity to move on to the next level. I tried to access your websites and were told that they had moved and not accessible. I have yet to be convinced. In my eyes, National Certs are treated as elite by the state and some local, and stripping excellent teachers of the consideration they deserve. National Cert. should be a part of the state pay scale and not considered separate and therefore causing division and animosity.
I have been trained in the Mentoring Academy offered by CSTP. I participate in the mentoring round table offered every month by them at my locale.
I have heard teachers, most of whom have their National Cert, who have been placed in mentoring positions, make fun of and mock classroom teachers who are trying their best, but simply need experience and/or guidance. This sickens me. I have spoken to it at these conferences in a respectful manner and have yet to have anyone uphold their comments. Very unclassy, extremely unprofessional. Yet, this is what our state finds the creme de le creme? Please.
Hey Nancy-
First of all, thanks for reading the blog. (And you had to go pretty deep to find this post!) In my experience, districts and schools don’t subsidize teachers when they pursue a masters degree for two reasons: the state already does by way of the salary schedule, and also because schools and districts don’t see a difference in the classroom after a teacher gets her masters. That’s not to say that there isn’t a difference; but the fact is, masters degrees are so ubiquitous and varied that its probably impossible to find a measurable difference. And besides, most teachers get their masters degrees over a long period of time, so it’s impossible to scientifically separate the effects of the masters from the effects of experience or other non-masters training they’ve undergone.Which brings me to National Board Certification. Researchers have found, repeatedly, that there is a measurable difference. Don’t take my word for it, though, go here: http://www.tasb.org/services/hr_services/hrx/vol12/no5/national_board_certi.html, or here: http://www.realizethedream.org/programs/nbpts.html. There data is out there. I have no reason to doubt that your personal experience has led you to believe that National Board Certified Teachers aren’t necessarily any better than their peers. And I certainly don’t claim to be the best teacher in my school. But that’s not the point. The point of NB Certification is to become the best teacher I can be. And that has happened for me. That’s what I was trying to get across with this post: https://www.storiesfromschool.org/2008/11/welcome-and-congratulations-new-nbcts.html. Going through the process requires a candidate to describe, analyze and reflect and their teaching to a degree that is impossible to describe to someone who hasn’t been through it. I hope that doesn’t sound as vague as what you’re hearing from your peers, but it’s the truth. So, yeah, NB certification does make a difference. There’s real, scientific data to back that up. And for every teacher who’s gone through the process, there’s anecdotal evidence that also backs it up. One more thing. You describe the experience of watching NBCTs become not-so-good teacher leaders. I’ve noticed the same thing. In fact, I’ve seen that guy in mirror! One of the problems with our industry is that we tend to promote good teachers into jobs or roles that have a completely different skill-set from that which they excelled at, and then we fail to train them for their new roles, and watch as they flounder or fail. Fortunately, here in Washington State, we have an organization called CSTP (www.CSTP-WA.org. They’re the ones that host our blog.) which has responded to that dilemma by outlining a framework of skills that teacher leaders need and providing training to that end.
Nancy, thanks again for your insightful comment, and for staying in the profession for the better part of three decades.
I have been teaching since 1981, kindergarten, first and second. I received my Master’s in 2004. It has been my experience that teachers that have received their national cert. are taking money from PTA’s and school districts to fund their National Cert. knowing that they will be making that investment back in their first merit pay check. How can anyone feel that this is acceptable? I paid for my Master’s myself, knowing that it was an investment in my future. Why are school districts responsible for teachers who want to increase their pay? I know national cert. teachers who are asked to take different positions in a district due only to the initials after their name. These same people were poor managers in their classroom, poor communicators to peers, but yet, because they “test” well, are given merit pay. These same people sacrificed one year or more of students to be able to increase their pay. I have asked numerous national certs. what they feel is different about their teaching now that they weren’t doing before. Answers are very vague. Everyone talks about the process and how rigorous it is. Every day in a classroom is rigorous. We are here, especially those of us that have been here for the long haul, because it is our passion. I am worthy of a $5,000 dollar check because I teach every child, every day and do a darn fine job.
Reading through some of my favorite articles by Alfie Kohn and this one relates. It helps to provide a larger view of the issue.
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/meritpay.htm
I believe that NBPTS is the solution for the moment. It is there, established, has proven itself in research…so it is the solution for the moment. NBPTS is an assessment or the teacher’s skill with the craft of teaching. I agree with that being the “merit pay” option. Plus it is totally voluntary and rewards the teachers who sacrifice their own time and energy.
Your critiques of test score use are right on. And as a fellow NBCT, I agree with you regarding the value of the certificate and the usefulness of the portfolio. I just question the repetition of the word “only” – I’m all for advancing certification and growing our numbers, but wouldn’t want to dismiss all other possibilities and hold up NBPTS as the single model that will work.
Great post–I especially liked the way you thought teachers could maximize their odds of improving test scores. My take on that? Most teachers would continue to try to spread their instructional skill equally, just because their moral threshold wouldn’t let them ignore two groups of kids who need good teaching (albeit for different reasons). And the rest of the teachers? They’d be taking home the fat paychecks, eh? They could go back to school and become economists.
Denver Public Schools have a very workable pay for performance plan, called ProComp. So far it’s worked well–it’s a kind of “checks and balances” model, which relies on a cross-section of data. A single bad evaluation would be seen in context. Worth googling…
Interesting spin on merit pay — one of the issues that always seems to stop the merit pay conversation connects to ‘who’ will be doing the evaluation. Often, teachers want to ensure that the ‘evaluation process’ is fair and equitable to all… and based on clear criteria. NBPTS seems to address this. One thing to consider — NBPTS often is criticized for their low certification rate for people of color – and that NBPTS might be biased in some way towards some ethnic groups. How does this issue figure into the merit pay, as it connects to NBPTS, if we want to ensure an equitable system?