The Case for Competition

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size NotesCarl J. Megel, Goals of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO and Why (Chicago: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO).See, for instance, Jack E. Kleinmanii, “Merit Pay—The Big Question,” National Education Association Journal, LII (May, 1963), pp. 42–44 and “Why Few School Systems Use Merit Ratings,” National Education Association Research Bulletin, XXXIX (May, 1961), pp. 61–63.American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, Research Division, Merit Rating: Dangerous Mirage or Master Plan (Chicago: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, August, 1958), pp. 25–30.Ibid., p. 34.Ibid., p. 6.“Why Few School Systems Use Merit Ratings,” p. 63.Harold E. Mitzel, “Teacher Effectiveness,” Encyclopedia of Educational Research (3rd edition), Chester W. Harris, editor (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960), p. 1481.Bruce J. Biddle and William J. Ellena (editors), Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. vi.S. Vincent Wilking, “Merit Pay and Better Teaching,” Teachers College Record, LXIII (January, 1962), p. 300.“Why Few School Systems Use Merit Rating,” p. 62.For a brief resume of findings, see Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964), p. 332 ff.There are exceptions. See Jean D. Grambs, Schools, Scholars and Society (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 152.Roderic L. Wagoner, “Perceptions of Teacher Roles in Arizona Secondary Schools and Their Relation to the Secondary Teacher Education Program at the University of Arizona,” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, 1965), p. 107.“A New Approach to Merit Salaries,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (September, 1964), p. 25.