Should NAFCS use a merit pay system?
Yes: 4
No:11
Abstain: 4
Recently the issue of merit pay was brought to the attention of the members of The Blotter staff. Essentially merit pay is monetary compensation that has been issued at some schools. The money is rewarded to teachers whose students reach a certain score on their standardized testing in that teacher’s subject. For example, if Mr. Smith taught you well enough that you get a perfect score on your Biology ECA, and enough other students do as well, Mr. Smith would get paid more money.
This may seem like a fine and dandy idea. Extra money gives anyone the incentive to work harder. Education could be improved by teachers’ renewed eagerness to improve test scores. Also, good teachers would receive the reward they deserve. Furthermore, nearly every other job in America has pay that is based on performance, or at least has incentives for performance. Why should teaching be any different? These are the teachers of the next generation of our country, they hold the future. And yet, there are some garbage men who are paid more than teachers. Giving teachers a tiny token of our gratitude should be a no-brainer.
However, at The Blotter we have taken the other side. The consensus amongst our staff is that teachers should not receive merit pay. Teachers can only do so much; the rest falls on the students to achieve high test scores. Why should teachers be rewarded for students’ hard work or punished for lack thereof? Also, there are many quality teachers in our school who do not have an ECA for their course. It’s not fair to them to not receive additional pay simply because their students won’t be tested over what they have learned. This simple phrase sums it up; “There are some things money can’t buy.” Test scores is one of them. Monetary compensation should not be used to institute higher scores.