In some ways, it looks like charter schools are delivering on their promise to innovate when it comes to merit pay for teachers. Economist Michael Podgursky’s analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Educations suggests that charter schools are more likely to pay extra for particular skills or qualifications than are traditional public schools. Thirty- eight percent of charters offer teachers incentives or bonuses for “excellence in teaching,” compared to only six percent of traditional public schools.
Charter schools are also more likely to offer extra incentives for teachers with hard-to-find skills or working in hard-to-hire subjects like science and math. Even though 62% of charters are still using traditional salary schedules, they do not work in the same way that they do in traditional public schools, because of the absence of teacher tenure. Charter schools are more likely to dismiss teachers early in their careers, and if these dismissals are due to poor performance, charter school salary schedules may, in effect, reward both experience and performance. However, charter schools could do even better when it comes to performance pay. Only 35% of them use merit incentives, and a low 15 % use subject-area incentives. It seems that state policy and institutional context constrain non-traditional approaches toward compensation. So, for charter schools, the challenge is to overcome traditional thinking and make full use of their autonomy to attract and retain the highest-quality teachers. For policymakers, the challenge is to make sure that laws and regulatory environments support innovation.
I have always wondering what it is like to get paid the same as others, when you do more work and harder work. I have two children, and I know they can be wonderful and sweet, and exhausting and frustrating. I can only imagine what it is like to be surrounded by dozens of them. Initially, I am sure teachers enter the profession because it is an underlying passion of theirs. Eventually, there may be teachers who are burnt out and not willing to try as hard as they used to, but on the contrary, there will be those teachers who keep working hard day after day, looking for the special tricks that work. I feel those teachers should be rewarded! The teachers who are more productive in educating the children should be rewarded for their efforts.
The teacher unions seem to fight this plan relentlessly, but I ask myself why? Is it because some of them realize they will have to work harder for their keep or do they fear their coworkers will make more than them?
An article in the Columbia Tribune discusses Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof's plan to increase salaries for science and math teachers. In a way, this coincides with merit pay (in a skewed sense), but it strives to accomplish the same goals. The plan is to pay $15,000 bonuses to new science and math teachers, in hopes to entice more people to enter those areas.
Hulshof's plan sets a goal of getting 1,500 new teachers into Missouri math and science classrooms over five years by paying them a gradually increasing annual bonus.
Hulshof describes his own proposal as building upon a 2007 law sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Jeff Smith, of St. Louis, which offers up to $21,000 over five years to new teachers who go to work in unaccredited districts, such as the St. Louis School District.
Although Hulshof's plan would reserve 150 subsidized math and science slots for such districts, the rest of the bonuses could go to teachers anywhere in the state.
Missouri officials have sought for several years to place a greater emphasis on math and science, with an eye toward building a work force for technology-based businesses.
Gov. Matt Blunt organized a summit on the subject in April 2006 and subsequently appointed a panel that recommended ways of getting more youths interested in careers in the math and science fields.
Earlier this year, a House committee endorsed a bill that would have offered a $5,000 bonus to math and science teachers hired by school districts that lack full state accreditation or are financially poor because low property values have held down their tax revenues. But that plan, which was part of a larger package intended to boost teacher salaries, never cleared the House.
