America is known to have a capitalistic economy (it is not 100% capitalistic on the spectrum, but when asked, we state that we have a capitalistic economy).
Most jobs will pay their employees according to if they do their job and they do it well. When it comes to public schools, teachers are paid based upon their years of experience and their qualifications. There is also this thing called "tenure" which after a certain number of years at the job (I believe it is three years), makes it very hard for the teacher to lose their job.
There are many pros and cons to merit based pay for teachers.
PROS:
-education will improve because MBP will weed out the teachers who don't achieve the results illustrated in their students test scores
-it will give teachers an incentive to keep working hard (it is a fact that many [not all] teachers burn out after teaching for so long and do not teach with the same enthusiasm when they first started.
-it rewards teachers who do an outstanding job teaching
CONS:
-many do not think MBP is fair because there will be obvious differences in the test scores of an Senior AP class than a freshman CP class
-it does not work for all subjects. Music and Special Ed are cases where it is hard to determine what has been accomplished through standardized tests.
-it is not fair for teachers to be "punished" if their students are just not good test takers
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1862444-1,00.html
I couldn't find an extremely current article about this, but this article from Time Magazine last year provides some pretty good insight on Michelle Rhee (the chancellor of education in Washington DC). Rhee supports the idea of merit based pay as means to improve education by weeding out the "bad" teachers and rewarding the "good" ones who get results illustrating the improvement of their students.
"Rhee wants to use that [improving test scores with a certain teacher] to decide who gets paid more--and, in combination with classroom evaluation, who keeps the job. But many teachers do not trust her to do this fairly, and the union bristles at the idea of giving up tenure, the exceptional job security that teachers enjoy."
One of the things that I found almost shocking when I first read this article almost a year ago was this interesting piece of data regarding having "good" teachers over "bad" ones:
"If two average 8-year-olds are assigned to different teachers, one who is strong and one who is weak, the children's lives can diverge in just a few years, according to research pioneered by Eric Hanushek at Stanford. The child with the effective teacher, the kind who ranks among the top 15% of all teachers, will be scoring well above grade level on standardized tests by the time she is 11. The other child will be a year and a half below grade level--and by then it will take a teacher who works with the child after school and on weekends to undo the compounded damage. In other words, the child will probably never catch up."
Now I must warn you, many people I've talked to at Aragon are very opposed to the idea of merit based pay because it does not seem like a fair system. Only the thing is, that is because people at Aragon immediately think of the teachers at Aragon and that it would not be fair for them to be penalized if the students don't meet the standards in our test scores. I think that many of us agree that our teachers are great, and I believe that the majority of teachers here would have no problem with us not meeting the test standards. The thing is that MBP will help education in parts of the country where teachers aren't as strong and in turn student education is sacrificed (I couldn't think of a less intense adjective...).
What do you guys think? Any arguments for MBP or why MBP should not be implemented?