The merit-based pay idea is among the most powerful and controversial of these reformist proposals. Yet, consider: there is a solid opportunity for soldiers to move up in the military ranks, if they show themselves to be highly effective. This is in direct opposition to the Teachers' Union approach, which attempts to reward seniority alone, with no accounting for efficiency... effectively flattening out the whole system of compensation in public schooling.
Mr. Eggers' evidence makes this clear, as well. Discussing what he sees as tragically low pay for teachers, he notes that teacher salaries start at $39,000 and max out at $69,000. Now, the base starting salary for American jobs is around $40K, so that $39K starting salary really doesn't sound too bad, when you consider the summers off, strong federal benefits, and stuff like that. But then you look at the $69K end of the spectrum — really? That's the most you can work up to? — and you realize that it's not the raw compensation that's the problem. It's lack of mobility, and lack of intelligent distribution of those salaries. As Mr. Eggers says, there's a massive turnover within the first five years... about the amount of time it takes these new teachers to realize their high-pressure job has no long-term opportunity for growth or attainment.
Again, this is precisely what the merit-pay systems of (for instance) Michelle Rhee were intended to solve.
Mr. Eggers massively oversimplifies this problem. His editorial seems to suggest that the American government just massively short-changes its educational system (thus, the tired, but accidentally instructive, "what if the army had to hold a bake sale?" analogy). This may seem a little confusing when you look at certain numbers, which make it clear that the US actually does a decent job of funding its education system. Check out this chart... the US spends an average of $10,000 per child, which puts us above pretty much all the other developing countries, except for Luxemborg (?).
Source: "Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators", see www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010
So the problem obviously isn't mere volume — it's efficiency. We have one of the lowest rates of attainment given our expenditure on education. And this lack of efficiency is because in our country, there is a deficiency in information. The system for distributing teacher pay is parasitic — schools are so heavily funded by local property taxes that they only pay what their locality can afford. Poor areas get poor teachers, wealthy areas get decent teachers, and the problem gets more entrenched. There's no internal logic, no flow of information, no apparatus for evaluating and tweaking the way the money gets around. Evaluations and standardized tests are one way of collecting information; standards (i.e. baselines) are a way of organizing that information; merit-based pay and teacher redistribution are ways of acting upon it. These are the tools of the reformer.
Article comments
1 - rtimbuc
This summation is not that bad, but it's not good either, and despite your stated attempt to stay centered you don't. I think you miss the point of Mr.Eggers op ed. What I got out of it is that school administrators aren't getting any of the blame for underperforming students, but they are getting most of the money that the districts bring in. Maybe a better solution would be to take a closer look at the distribution of the available funds and eliminate the bureaucracy that exists in the school districts, along with the inflated salaries of the administrators. Because of this elimination, teachers' salary could increase and with this increase their morale might follow. I'm not saying that the teachers are all good and some checks and balances could be put in place to weed out the poor teachers. But lets not make this whole discussion about teachers not doing enough with the many resources given here in the US, when in fact, when the money trickles down to them, its really not that much compared to the work they do.
2 - Jesse M
Hmm... you overread a bit, I think. I wasn't intending to stay centered -- I announce my loyalty in the 4th paragraph. I wanted to treat the opposing side of the debate fairly, not to paint them as outrageous or irrational, and I think I did okay with that.
That said, I think you offer a much more substantive plan here than Mr. Eggers offers. He never mentions administrators' comparative level of accountability or salary. I would strongly support an evidence-based argument to the effect that you're making: that the current system could be improved by removing bureaucratic red tape and redistributing funds from administrators down to teachers (although still, I would prefer it be linked to an assessment of merit, rather than pure seniority).
3 - John Thompson
I appreciate the way you present your argument. The distinction SHOULD be between traditional reformers versus data-driven reformers. Our real difference is between data-INFORMED vs data-DRIVEN reform.
But we the traditional reformers did not pick this fight. And make no mistake, many of the Accountablity Hawks are calling us racists. Since we are the ones who live our lives with poor children of color, it sometimes make me angrier than I'd like. (and it lets my black daughter get in extra jabs ...)
In addition to defending the liberal arts, we are defending the principle of peer review and social science. Remember, social scientists are virtually unanimous in opposing their value-added models and challenging their hypotheses of teaching and learning. They deny the results of cohnitive science based on ... ? their personal experiences? If more of them had teaching experience (or submitting their opinions to peer review)they would realize that teaching is more an affair of the Heart than the Head.
In fact, if Gates is proven correct, he'll have engineered the ultimate paradigm shift. In addition to being remembered as a Newton, he'll have also achieved a Copernican revolution. He will has created a system based on huge amounts of data of all types and validity and have replaced quality with qunatity. He'll have, in effect, devised a meta-analysis that replaced the scientific method.
But I don't think he'll pull it off. Rhee, Klein et. al will learn that any jackass can kick down a barn but they have no clue how to replace "the status quo."
4 - sozo23
You miss a simple outcome of Eggers' call for teacher salary increases: growing the teacher talent pool. Higher potential earnings will draw more people into teaching and slow down turnover, ultimately helping to weed out the "bad" teachers: competition for positions would be too fierce.
As far as standardized testing goes, I don't trust it: there are too many variables and other important facets of education are lost. It's too easy to manipulate test results (as Michelle Rhee now knows). Schools are not assembly lines. Is what we really need a whole lot of people with degrees but no critical thinking skills? It's no wonder that corporate America is the entity driving these reforms...