December Topic Overview

Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools.  

Introduction 

            Merit based pay has been a hotly debated issue for years. Proponents say that merit based pay will increase the effectiveness of teachers and thus the learning of students.  Opponents, on the other hand, say that merit based pay is unfair and would be nearly impossible to implement.

            Merit based pay has recently been in the spotlight because of Obama’s eagerness to revitalize the Teacher Incentive Fund as part of his “Race to the Top Education Initiative.” This fund would give money to states and local school districts so that they can research and start systems that reward teachers for the achievement of their students.  Because this issue has recently received much national attention, debaters should have no trouble finding supporting material and evidence for their arguments.

            There are two sticky phrases in this resolution, however. “Student achievement” is difficult to define. What kind of achievement did the framers of this resolution intend? Do test scores need to meet a certain standard or should achievement be based on progress?  There are hundreds of ways to define achievement, and it will be up to each team to decide the best way to do this in the round. It will be particularly important for the affirmative to show a clear way to define achievement.  This aspect of the resolution makes it particularly amenable to negative counterplans.  The negative can agree with the affirmative that merit based pay is a good idea, but argue that we should measure student achievement in a different way than the affirmative does.

            The second sticky phrase is the term “significant component.” This means that merit based pay isn’t the entirety of a teacher’s salary. Presumably, there would be some sort of base salary, which would be raised (and perhaps lowered) based on the academic improvement of their students.  Teachers will always get paid, but the increase in pay will depend on how well they do their job. I suppose an accurate parallel would be a waitress. If they do their job well, they get larger tips. If they don’t, they may not get a tip at all but they are still being paid by the hour.   This phrase also lends itself well to negative counterplans.  The negative can argue for merit based pay, but assert that it not be a significant component of the teacher’s salary.

            Other than these two phrases, the resolution is pretty straightforward and will definitely result in some interesting clash. This is certainly a topic that is understandable and of interest to most people.   Because of this, it will be an appealing debate for your judges to hear.  

  Affirmative Arguments 

            The first and most obvious argument that the affirmative can make is that teachers will do a better job when they have an economic incentive. Currently, the majority of public school systems base teacher pay off several factors including time spent teaching, level of education, etc. But none of those factors include how much their students actually learn.

            The possibility of extra cash, especially in today’s economy, may be an effective incentive for teachers to work harder and care about whether or not their students learn. President of the Teacher Advancement Program Foundation, Lewis Solomon, cites a RAND study that found that fifty percent of schools with merit based pay reforms outperformed control schools in math, and forty seven percent outperformed the control schools in reading. [i]

            There are numerous other studies affirmatives can cite including a 2004 study of a four-year pilot program in Denver.  This study found that students’ test scores increased when teachers met two or more district-approved teaching objectives and were compensated for those achievements.[ii]

            Second, affirmatives can argue that merit based pay will attract the best and the brightest to the profession.  Phil Gonring, who was very involved in ProComp, one of America's longest-lived merit pay programs said, "Teachers are going to get paid a lot more under these performance-pay plans. What we'll see is a transformation in the labor market. It's going to become more economically viable for young people to come into the profession and stay for a good period of time. The No. 1 education issue is human capital management. And money plays a huge role in getting people to stay.”[iii]  Merit based pay makes it economically viable for teachers to get into the teaching business and stay there, all the while improving their skills and increasing their pay to match. [iv]

            Along the same lines, affirmatives can argue that teachers are underpaid and merit based pay could help raise the salaries of quality educators.  Arguably, merit based pay is an easy way to offer teachers more money, so long as they work for it.

            Where would we get the extra money? Mark Hemingway of CBS News has an idea. “Every day, bonds are approved to build stadiums, even schools. The presumption is that the new buildings will increase the profile of a given city, thus attracting more visitors, more businesses, more families and more tax revenue, all of which will pay down the bond. By the same token, then, wouldn't it make sense to create a bond to pay for better educators?”[v]

            Finally, affirmatives can argue that if it is accurate that teachers are more effective when their pay is based on their students’ achievement, it is important that the United States look into this type of solution. The United States cannot be a significant world power in terms of technological innovation or military innovation if U.S. students are performing worse than the rest of the world’s students in the areas of math and science. Affirmatives can argue that the United States should be willing to do whatever is necessary to increase these scores, even if there are some disadvantages.  This is a great way to weigh the affirmative advantages against the negative disadvantages in this debate.

 Negative Arguments

            First, the negative can quite argue that implementing a merit pay system for teachers would be a bureaucratic nightmare. School districts would likely need to hire several new administrators to keep up with all of the paperwork. This type of system would change how every single teacher is paid. It is difficult enough for most school districts to manage to pay their teachers on time as it is; negatives can argue that this would create a completely backed up system.

            Second, a common argument against merit pay is that it would turn the education system into a competitive, maybe even combative, environment. Often, teachers improve educational quality for their students by working together to achieve the common goal of education. The negative can argue that under a merit based system, teachers would be essentially pitted against each other for better pay.

            Joseph Pechthalt of the American Federation of Teachers argued that, "Whether it is the informal discussion that takes place in the lunchroom or the more formal exchanges based on grade level, department, or small learning communities, these are only successful because as teachers we understand teaching is about working together to help our students, not competition for better pay.”[vi]

            Third, and probably most importantly, academic achievement is very difficult to define. The least subjective way to quantify success is most likely through standardized test scores, but standardized tests have many critics. David Riegel, a former classroom teacher, argued, "Teacher evaluation is more complicated than simply looking at test scores. It requires careful examination of specific teacher behaviors in the classroom, of how a teacher relates to students, and his or her command of the subject matter they are teaching. This cannot be judged simply by looking at test scores, which may be high in some cases in spite of uninspiring instruction: it requires an effective and highly skilled administrator who knows what she is looking for when she observes a teacher interacting with her students, and who is skilled at helping teachers improve. In short, pay for performance provides an easy way out when quality supervision of instruction is what should really be taking place.” [vii]

            Riegel points out something very important. Teacher quality goes beyond test scores. But, even when teachers are evaluated by observation, a problem exists in the subjectivity of the observer. There may be no perfectly accurate way to gauge the level of success of any given student, or the teaching quality of any given teacher.

            But what about the inherent flaws in trying to judge educational success in the first place? Mary Gryphon of the Cato Institute says, “The system can't simply reward high scores. If it did, it would favor teachers in wealthy neighborhoods whose students came to school with excellent skills. Nor can the system reward only improvement. If it did, it would unfairly penalize teachers whose students were already scoring too well to post large gains.”[viii]

            Certainly, socioeconomic status, historic educational success of particular schools, and available resources have an effect on learning. Negatives can argue that these factors render merit based pay unfair.

            Fourth, basing pay on the amount students learn may encourage teachers to help students cheat. Gryphon says “…any money for test results scheme will worsen the problem of teachers cheating on standardized tests to avoid the consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers willing to erase wrong answers on exams to avoid having their school labeled "needing improvement" will also be tempted by the thought of a personal raise.”

            Finally, as we mentioned in the introduction, negatives can make use of counterplans on this topic.  In some cases you may be able to use your affirmative arguments on the negative.  Below are several ways you can use a counterplan on this topic.

·         Argue that merit based pay systems should only be used in grades 9-12

·         Argue for a different standard of “academic achievement” than the affirmative uses.

·         Argue that merit based pay systems should determine only a small part of the teacher’s salary.