Comments on: Minneapolis backs Bishop on merit pay

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:59:38 +0000

Des, I think you’re doing exactly what you accuse others of doing – just asserting. There is plenty of evidence that merit pay works – it’s the default system in professional workplaces.
The lack of it is also one reason why people move out of teaching, or move from teaching in state schools to private schools.
Of course it’s not the only thing that motivates workers, job satisfaction is pretty high on the list.
If you read my post you’d know that I was interested in the wrinkles in the US system, such as rewarding teams rather than individual teachers.
Couldn’t find the paper that you say is on that website, but I did find this other paper which rather than taking your negative view lays out a history of merit pay and then discusses factors to take into account when instituting it: http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0704-231-EPRU.pdf.
Worth a read if you haven’t already made up your mind.

By: Des Griffin

Des Griffin — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:55:35 +0000

On and on it goes! No matter how many times people who carry out research, or know of the research or have substantial experience in educational settings, point out that merit pay is simplistic, that there are many other aspects of recognition of teachers that contribute to exemplary performance, that rewarding only teachers misses the point, that in general merit pay is not grounded in any supporting evidence, etc etc, we continue to hear of how performance pay will make a great difference to educational outcomes. This is all part of the “new normal”, simply assert something, and go on asserting it: evidence is not necessary!
There is a huge amount of research on teaching and learning going on in many countries, particularly the USA. One of the leading researchers is Professor David Berliner at Arizona State University. If we want to know what it is that leads to exemplary outcomes, read his paper in The Journal of Teacher Education Vol 51/5 (Nov-Dec 2000), p 358. It is accessible through his website. Berliner has frequently attached this bashing of teachers. One of the distinguishing features of his presentations: evidence!
Berliner lists the features which contribute to exemplary learning. Merit pay for teachers is not one of them.
The arguments advanced by Minister Bishop on education are like those advanced by many others in the Howard Government on many subjects. Nothing more than the new normal. When these tricks have been tried and failed then we will be asked to go through some other form of nonsense. It is letting children down, it is letting teachers down and it is letting the community down. And most of all it is undermining the future!

By: MikeM

MikeM — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:50:07 +0000

Misleading heading. All schemes that include some form of incentive payment are not the same. If Julie Bishop has put forward a "plan" it is nothing like that being implemented in Minneapolis public schools. Furthermore, Bishop is offering no additional funds. Minnesota (with a slightly smaller population than NSW) has stumped up $US80 million in additional funds. Merit pay is only one (if the most newsworthy one) of the four elements of the Teacher Advancement Program, http://www.talentedteachers.org/tap.taf?page=whatistap As noted at http://www.talentedteachers.org/pubs/effective_tap07_summary.pdf , "Many of these elements have been tried in isolation in the past and have not resulted in student achievement gains. Our innovation changes schoolsâ€™ organizational structure and included key elements to attract, retain, develop, and motivate quality teachers with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement and closing achievement gaps." Our current federal government's proposal seems to involve little more than using unspecified criteria for increasing some teachers' salaries at the expense of others'. I'm not surprised that teachers are unenthusiastic.