2 of 23

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Merit pay, inarguably, is the best solution to properly compensate educators. Teachers who are better skilled should get better pay. That definition of "better" can be arbitrary and subjective doesn't mean that merit pay is less ideal. Most of the arguments supposedly against this system are not in opposition to the idea itself, but that merit pay would be laborious to implement. However, refusing to arrive at the right answer, just because it is difficult, is neither progressive nor rational.

Let's evaluate the alternative: "Teachers should get the same pay increase every year, regardless of their performance or abilities." Subscribing to this idea requires the believer to systematically reject the principle that payment should be tied to perspiration. This is collectivism, and regardless of where it has been tried, it has always underperformed a meritorious system. Assuming that all teachers are driven completely by altruistic motivations is illogical, and the idea that all teachers will perform at maximum ability if maximum effort is not compensated is absurd. Humans are economic creatures and, as a whole, when individual achievement is not rewarded, individual excellence is not attained.

Some have suggested that merit pay would be difficult to apply objectively. In the corporate world, this is resolved by having discussions with a manager, and putting concrete goals on a work plan, which is reviewed regularly. Merit pay, tied to a work plan with measurable goals, would drive a system of increased accountability. If problems arose in the classroom, a teacher would have incentive to raise the issue with supervisors earlier.

While any pay structure has the potential to be abused, meritorious compensation would prevent under-motivated and under-achieving teachers from hiding behind the current union and tenure system. Concluding a priori that merit pay cannot be done objectively indicates a lack of creativity and a desire to maintain the status quo. In contrast, merit pay would drive additional communication between school leadership and educators. Supervisors would be viewed as a means to break down barriers and redirect resources if a teacher is struggling under unnecessarily adverse conditions. Problems would be addressed earlier, because teachers would be motivated to find solutions.

It has been argued that government environments are not well conditioned to implementing meritorious systems. True, bureaucracies have never been known as pantheons of productivity, but rather than abandoning valuable ideas, perhaps implementing additional forward-thinking changes would also benefit the educational system. Corporations are no less subject to individual environments and unique challenges to every employee, yet they have found that merit pay produces positive competition, a sense of personal achievement, and retains highly valued employees.

Merit pay should be implemented because it is the right thing to do for hardworking teachers. It may be difficult and challenging to apply correctly, but as a whole, teachers, especially those who desire to improve at their job, will benefit. If our nation's history is any example, a system that rewards individual merit is superior to any other.

Learn more about this author, Paul Biedler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should public school teachers get merit pay??
We want to hear your view. Write now!