ESEA’s Proposed Pay-for-Performance Option: Potential Issues Regarding the Evaluation of Special Educators

Abstract

Perhaps one of the most discussed and debated issues today facing teachers, teacher evaluators andacademic leadership, in general, is the determination of the most useful method of assessinginstructional effectiveness. Certainly this is neither a new idea nor a novel focus. The concept andprocess of evaluating a teacher’s impact on student achievement has been a topic of interest to thefield of education for some time, but one aspect of the current emphasis is directly related to thedetermination of appropriate methods for the monetary rewarding of educators for their level ofinstructional influence.The discussion among invested parties appears to suggest that the single-salary schedulemodel of remuneration for educators is losing some of its support in favor of a differentiatedcompensation approach. Whether one refers to this orientation as "merit pay" (Evans, 2001, p.48), "performance-related pay" (Podgursky & Springer, 2006, p.4) or "pay-for-performanceprograms" (Burns & Gardner, 2010, para. 4), the message is clear: Educator compensation is a topicof critical importance to the school reform discussion. Although conversations "about pay forperformance for teachers go back as early as 1867 and were part of almost every decade of the lastcentury" (Springer & Gardner, 2010, p.8), this practice has taken on intensified importance, due in nosmall part, to the legislative reform agenda associated with the American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009 (ARRA) and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),also known as the No Child Left Behind Act.