Pay Teachers By Their Actual Merit? LOLz!
A former teacher of mine, Thomas Zachek, is a current community columnist in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and recently argued that “merit pay” isn’t a good way to overhaul a perceived “teacher-pay problem.”
“Merit pay” is essentially finding a way to evaluate teachers and pay them for performance, instead of on experience. Zachek’s argument is that the world of teaching is too complex and intangible to be measured all that easily.
Some merit pay proposals have included [teacher evaluation] criteria such as community involvement, membership in professional organizations and co-curricular duties. These things have little to do with classroom performance. Rather, they are easily quantifiable, checklist criteria that sound impressive but can be used to shortcut the burdensome task of properly evaluating teachers.
Hmm - easily quantifiable, checklist criteria? Almost like a Scantron test.
If only the world of teaching were as simple and testable as the world of learning. Then it could just as easily be reduced to true/false, multiple choice, or essay questions. But please, please - keep that kind of tomfoolery to the ones actually being taught.
Before I start the rest of this post, a note: I liked Mr. Zachek’s composition class and I learned a lot there. (It may have something to do with the fact that, for once, a composition class means you can actually practice what you’re learning, but now I’m getting carried away). I still consider Mr. Zachek one of the better teachers I’ve had.
Okay, note over. Time to continue pouring coals on the raging furnace of my hatred for public education.
Teachers believe undyingly in the validity of their own methods, and the value of their work. Yet when you remotely suggest anything that they do to (not “for”) students happen to them, as well, they cannot disagree with you more. What does that say about the validity of their methods and the value of their work?
What would our education system look like if teachers actually had to practice the BS they preached?
- Teachers would have to teach random classes to fulfill liberal arts requirements. English professors doing chem labs. You say “This makes no sense, Dan!” My response: Exactly. Exactly.
- Teachers have to be evaluated by a living, breathing, hot-blooded human being who is with them every class period (since students are, too). These human beings will be nearly incapable of objective analysis by their very nature, so evaluations will often reflect more than the teacher’s ability to teach.
- Teachers will have to teach only one way - by reading from the textbook. This will cause an outcry, but students don’t have a choice, either.
Zachek’s article does have a good point, though, and one that teachers rarely make: evaluating teachers would just mean more tax money spent.
A school wanting to seriously evaluate every teacher every year in a true merit pay system would have to hire additional administrators, possibly one just to run the merit evaluation full time. Where’s the tax saving there?
True. So, if education isn’t a worthy investment - at least not worthy of more taxpayer money - why does it get public funding in the first place. Do away with the Department of Education and all publicly-funded schools, and the free market will introduce its own version of “merit-based” pay. If teachers provide so much value to this world, they have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Visit the BPN Political Discussion Boards
Did you like this post? Subscribe to the BipolarNation feed.
You can also receive the latest BipolarNation.com posts delivered to your e-mail inbox! Subscribe here.
The BipolarNation Robots Say You Might Also Like These Posts:
