The New York Times’ editorial is so unbelievably ignorant!
There is by now a huge accumulation of knowledge and experience about the uselessness of merit pay or pay for performance.
Daniel Pink (Drive), Dan Ariely (Predictably Irrational), Edward Deci (Why We Do What We Do) have explained why intrinsic motivation matters more than bonuses, and why bonuses may actually impair performance by demoralizing people.
Here are leading scholars in Zurich who explain yet again that merit pay does not work and will never work.
The idea that people are solely self-interested and materially orientated has been thrown overboard by leading scholars. Empirical research, in particular experimental research, has shown that under suitable conditions human beings care for the wellbeing of other persons. Above all, they are not solely interested in material gains (see eg Frey and Osterloh 2002). Recognition by co-workers is greatly important. Many workers are intrinsically motivated, ie they perform work for its own sake because it is found challenging and worth undertaking. This applies not only to qualified employees but also to persons fulfilling simple tasks. They often are proud of their work and performance.
What part of does not work, has not worked, and will incentivize negative behaviors does the Times not understand?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think the appeal of merit pay for reformers and politicians is that given the yearly fluctuations of value-added scores, merit pay might actually prove a cost-cutting measure for districts. Let’s say a merit pay system requires teachers to have value-added scores of 4 or 5 for three years in a row in order to earn a substantial bonus. What percentage of teachers actually manage that?
“What percentage of teachers actually manage that?”
Those in high/mid-SES schools where tests were created for these students to succeed. I’ve worked in schools where merit pay would have no benefits and schools where teachers would be waitinng in line to get into if merit pay was offered. Like the results of high-stakes tests, we can predict what teachers is likely to receive merit pay.
It makes more sense to pay teachers a higher wage if they work in low-SES schools.
It takes a certain amount of arrogance and self-assurance to be successful in business and/or politics. That is the only explanation I can concoct to explain how supposedly intelligent people can continue to fly in the face of copious amounts of research on merit pay and how it is not an effective motivator in educational situations. Sort of a “If we keep saying saying the words, they’ll eventually be true.”
“If we keep saying saying the words, they’ll eventually be true.” Yep, it’s called the Big Lie.
From wiki: The source of Big Lie technique is this passage, taken from Chapter 10 of James Murphy’s translation of Mein Kampf:
But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.
All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]
I think the appeal of merit pay to reformers and politicians is that it works for them. They are intrinsically motivated by the almighty dollar and don’t give a rat’s patootie about the children.
Can’t you imagine just how cold and insensitive the school’s climate would be with merit pay? The idea has always made me shiver.
I am going to try this again and try to be clearer about what I am saying. I will number the points to help.
1) I am not advocating for high stakes testing play any part of any teachers merit evaluation.
2) I am saying that basing pay on employee merit might be a good idea even if it has no impact on the amount of effort teachers make in the classroom.
3) My argument is that great teachers will also be great employees in other professions. We do not want them to leave teaching, so we should do what we can to keep them in the classroom by increasing their pay and perhaps making them feel more appreciated.
Once again, because I have not been clear enough about this in the past, this post has absolutely nothing to do with high stakes testing, nothing at all.
I have no data at my fingertips, but I don’t think lack of money is what drives great teachers from teaching. It takes a lot more than that to drive out a great teacher.
I thought I would take a quick look and see if I could find any data on this. As might be expected, there are a number of factors that influence teacher retention, though salary certainly seems to play a significant role.
The most recent article I looked at was “Who Teaches and Where They Choose to Teach: College Graduates of the 1990s” by Marigee Bacolod (Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 2007), pp. 155-168). This article is especially interesting because it considers the decision to become a teacher as well as the decision of where to teach. The conclusion of the article is that salary plays a relatively more important role in determining the decision to become a teacher and working conditions play a more important role in deciding where to teach.
An older paper, Why Public Schools Lose Teachers by Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain and Steven G. Rivkin (The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 326-354) focuses on retention of teachers. They find that teaching academically disadvantaged students significantly reduces teacher retention independent of teacher experience. They estimate that this can be offset by higher salaries.
A third article, Systems Thinking Can Improve Teacher Retention by Melanie M. Minarik, Bill Thornton and George Perreault (The Clearing House, Vol. 76, No. 5 (May – Jun., 2003), pp. 230-234) characterizes the existing literature as identifying several issues in teacher retention including low level rewards for knowledge and skill.
These studies do not address consider teacher quality, but we might be safe to assume that good and great teachers are influenced by the same factors as all teachers.
I just got a copy of “Drive” today at the recommendation of a business/career blog. I look forward to reading the passage in that book that talks about merit pay.