Fifty reasons why student achievement gain does not mean teacher effectiveness

Abstract

A study of U.S. school districts conducted 70 years ago reported that 48% of the districts sampled used merit pay (Evendon, 1918). Since then, the quantity as well as quality of teacher compensation systems have fluctuated markedly (for details, see Cohen & Murnane, 1985; Murnane & Cohen, 1986; Porwoll, 1979). At present, 29 states are implementing large-scale teacher incentive programs (a.k.a. career ladder, merit pay, pay for performance), funding local plans, piloting testing models, or using state board of education or legislative mandates to develop programs for teachers and administrators (Southern Regional Education Board, 1986). Teacher performance is at the core of all of the programs in operation or those being considered. Determining who will receive the pay bonuses, which typically range from $1,000 to $3,000 per year, or be promoted up the career ladder hinges on the methods used to evaluate teacher performance. The current trend in measurement procedures is to deemphasize supervisory ratings by the building principal and instead emphasize peer evaluation, classroom observation, student achievement outcomes, and questionnaire data from principals, teachers, and students (for details, see Southern Regional Education Board, 1986).