by Tony Otten
With the economy still sore and countries such as China, India and South (but not North!) Korea rocketing ahead of the U.S. in academics, many states are looking for ways to boost test scores and cut costs at the same time. A few, including Florida, are pushing to put a “merit pay” system in place in schools—mostly this means that teachers would be paid according to what grades their students make, and principals would earn money based on their school’s ranking.
With the economy still sore and countries such as China, India and South (but not North!) Korea rocketing ahead of the U.S. in academics, many states are looking for ways to boost test scores and cut costs at the same time. A few, including Florida, are pushing to put a “merit pay” system in place in schools—mostly this means that teachers would be paid according to what grades their students make, and principals would earn money based on their school’s ranking.
The system might sound strange, but because many states are strapped for cash, it could become a reality. In Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana, legislators are putting forth bills that would take away the rights of teachers’ unions (among others) to make deals for salary, working hours and benefits. This would leave teachers unable to have much say in what they make or how their pay is calculated. Some states, mostly with Tea Party governors, believe merit pay will keep teachers on their toes and force them into making their students successful. But is it fair? That was my survey’s subject.
Instead of interviewing students for this poll, I talked to teachers and school staff—after all, it’s their livelihood at stake. 66% of the teachers said no to merit pay; 33% said yes. However, the ones that answered yes said they would only consider supporting merit pay if the plans were fair and well thought-out, rather than a type of teacher-punishment; no one I spoke to felt very positive about a hard-and-fast system of “If Bobby makes an A, I get $50,000 this year; but if Bobby gets an F, I have to hide my car from the repo man and eat SPAM for six months.”
I can definitely see a teacher’s point of view on this—yes, they want their country to succeed, and yes, they want to prove themselves as hard workers, but no, they don’t want their pay determined by somebody who can’t spell contraception, much less use it.
Governors have no business sinking their teeth into education when most of them were mediocre students themselves—even if they did (like a certain former president) go to Yale. Before they get to decide how much teachers get paid, they should have to be a substitute teacher for one week—oh, and they can’t teach gym class, and they’re not allowed to bring duct tape or a Taser with them into the classroom, even if they beg.
I think even having this argument is ridiculous. If Congress banned earmarks (those trusty blocks of fine print that sent Billions-with-a-B to their pet projects every year), then the U.S. would have so much extra money it could double teachers’ salaries, let them keep their unions, and attract new, high-powered college graduates into education, when they would normally look for jobs with higher pay.
But wait! Congress screams. We can’t do that! How will we pay the psychics we use to predict terrorist attacks? How will we research pond algae in Connecticut cemeteries for $6 million? And for the love of God, how will we survive if we don’t have environmentally-sound spoons in the Capitol Hill cafeteria? To them I say, That’s tough. (These examples are all real, by the way). It comes down to the old maxim—You get what you pay for.
Plus, those spoons melt in the chili, anyway.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally supposed to appear in a March 2011 Tatler, but just didn’t “make it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment